Re: SCOTUS strikes down DOMA

by southindian Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:16 pm

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.
It is your belief about homosexuality that is silly and funny. Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species. Do you think those species also have "hobbies"?
Defects occur everywhere and homosexuality is same as defect in sexual relations. You can't give Six Sigma protection to sexuality and I find it silly, funny even if homosexuality defect occurs more than 3 per million. I hope this hobby remains as it is. An aberration and a defect to a natural man-woman relationship.
The only defect here is in your thinking.

Nope! Not true. That's just your opinion. Okay with that.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:19 pm

southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.
It is your belief about homosexuality that is silly and funny. Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species. Do you think those species also have "hobbies"?
Defects occur everywhere and homosexuality is same as defect in sexual relations. You can't give Six Sigma protection to sexuality and I find it silly, funny even if homosexuality defect occurs more than 3 per million. I hope this hobby remains as it is. An aberration and a defect to a natural man-woman relationship.
The only defect here is in your thinking.
Nope! Not true. That's just your opinion. Okay with that.

Yes, it is my opinion. The difference is that my opinion doesn't fly in the face of established facts, and it is not based on prejudice.

by southindian Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:27 pm

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
It is your belief about homosexuality that is silly and funny. Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species. Do you think those species also have "hobbies"?
Defects occur everywhere and homosexuality is same as defect in sexual relations. You can't give Six Sigma protection to sexuality and I find it silly, funny even if homosexuality defect occurs more than 3 per million. I hope this hobby remains as it is. An aberration and a defect to a natural man-woman relationship.
The only defect here is in your thinking.
Nope! Not true. That's just your opinion. Okay with that.
Yes, it is my opinion. The difference is that my opinion doesn't fly in the face of established facts, and it is not based on prejudice.

Anyone has the right to practice this hobby and make it legal, now that DOMA is gone. A few posts back I wrote, hope this hobby remains an aberration and established facts never make it mainstream. It can never become mainstream.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:32 pm

southindian wrote:I'm not prejudiced against their "hobby".

You are prejudiced against homosexual behavior. You admitted as much upthread and called it silly and funny.

southindian wrote:A few posts back I wrote, hope this hobby remains an aberration and established facts never make it mainstream. It can never become mainstream.

It is your view of homosexuality that is an aberration, and no longer mainstream in American society. The majority of young people in America believe same-sex marriage should be legal; the majority of American people view gay people as normal.

by southindian Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:44 pm

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:I'm not prejudiced against their "hobby".
You are prejudiced against homosexual behavior. You admitted as much upthread and called it silly and funny.

southindian wrote:A few posts back I wrote, hope this hobby remains an aberration and established facts never make it mainstream. It can never become mainstream.
It is your view of homosexuality that is an aberration, and no longer mainstream in American society. The majority of young people in America believe same-sex marriage should be legal; the majority of American people view gay people as normal.

I edited above, thought not needed, but agree I'm prejudiced against homosexual behavior. The marriage tag is wrong but who cares now. Marriage was made by humans anyway.

Aaha... Normal. That's what I should be going against. Homosexuality is not normal. It's a hobby practiced by few and homosexuals have forced America to make legal. The young do not care and care even less for marriage, which made homosexuals succeed. That's all.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:04 pm

Hellsangel wrote: All in the name of that Liberal trait of appeasing that '2%.

equal protection is not based on percentages, and it is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea but a democratic idea, and a rather simple one at that. that's why doma did not survive.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:07 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote: All in the name of that Liberal trait of appeasing that '2%.

equal protection is not based on percentages, and it is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea but a democratic idea, and a rather simple one at that. that's why doma did not survive.

Yes. Let me know when the minority of the voters elect their government in a Democracy.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:13 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote: All in the name of that Liberal trait of appeasing that '2%.

equal protection is not based on percentages, and it is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea but a democratic idea, and a rather simple one at that. that's why doma did not survive.

Yes. Let me know when the minority of the voters elect their government in a Democracy.

i know this is going to sound condescending, but please believe me that i don't mean it to be condescending.
but you do sound confused. the rights and privileges in a democratic society don't just apply to the majority. they apply to every participant in the democracy. the equal protection clause which is part of the fourteenth amendment was expressly added to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:15 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote: All in the name of that Liberal trait of appeasing that '2%.

equal protection is not based on percentages, and it is neither a liberal nor a conservative idea but a democratic idea, and a rather simple one at that. that's why doma did not survive.

Yes. Let me know when the minority of the voters elect their government in a Democracy.

i know this is going to sound condescending, but please believe me that i don't mean it to be condescending.
but you do sound confused. the rights and privileges in a democratic society don't just apply to the majority. they apply to every participant in the democracy. the equal protection clause which is part of the fourteenth amendment was expressly added to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Nobody said it is illegal to be gay, did they? No one said no to civil unions, did they? Give them an inch and they will take a mile is the pithy that comes to mind.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:17 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Nobody said it is illegal to be gay, did they? No one said no to civil unions, did they? Give them an inch and they will take a mile is the pithy that comes to mind.

how come you are allowed the mile? oh and sodomy is probably still a crime in alabama.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:22 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Nobody said it is illegal to be gay, did they? No one said no to civil unions, did they? Give them an inch and they will take a mile is the pithy that comes to mind.

how come you are allowed the mile?

What mile? We all have restrictions on what we can do. The only glimmer of hope is that more Democrats are voted out of swing states if they choose to crow about this.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:37 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Nobody said it is illegal to be gay, did they?

Lots of people did. There was a law against gay sex. SCOTUS struck that law down as -- wait for it -- unconstitutional. It happened just ten years ago. Look up Lawrence v. Texas.

Hellsangel wrote:No one said no to civil unions, did they?

Lots of people still say no to civil unions. Civil unions are illegal in several states.

Hellsangel wrote:Give them an inch and they will take a mile is the pithy that comes to mind.

When it comes to equal rights, it is good to not settle for an inch.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:37 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Nobody said it is illegal to be gay, did they? No one said no to civil unions, did they? Give them an inch and they will take a mile is the pithy that comes to mind.

how come you are allowed the mile? oh and sodomy is probably still a crime in alabama.

It was, until 2003 when the Supreme Court did what it did to DOMA.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:39 pm

Thankfully, marriage laws still fall under State purview and not Federal purview:

Any way you slice it, thousands of same-sex couples across the United States were thrilled by Wednesday's Supreme Court rulings. But in 37 states, some same-sex couples weren't as happy as they'd hoped to be.
They're the 37 states that ban same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 weren't broad enough to change that status.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-marriage-irpt/index.html

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:39 pm

southindian wrote:The young do not care and care even less for marriage, which made homosexuals succeed.

The young do not suffer from the prejudices you suffer from, and I view that as a good thing!

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:43 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Thankfully, marriage laws still fall under State purview and not Federal purview:

Any way you slice it, thousands of same-sex couples across the United States were thrilled by Wednesday's Supreme Court rulings. But in 37 states, some same-sex couples weren't as happy as they'd hoped to be.
They're the 37 states that ban same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 weren't broad enough to change that status.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-marriage-irpt/index.html

Yes, the court made the right decision leaving it up to the states. It should help avoid the huge political backlash the court's decision in Roe v. Wade sparked.

As MLK said, the arc of the moral universal is long, but it bends towards justice. Ten years ago sodomy was a crime in several states. Twenty years from now, I think marriage equality will be the law of the land for most Americans.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:44 pm

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:The young do not care and care even less for marriage, which made homosexuals succeed.
The young do not suffer from the prejudices you suffer from, and I view that as a good thing!

Another romantic notion.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:44 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Thankfully, marriage laws still fall under State purview and not Federal purview:

Any way you slice it, thousands of same-sex couples across the United States were thrilled by Wednesday's Supreme Court rulings. But in 37 states, some same-sex couples weren't as happy as they'd hoped to be.
They're the 37 states that ban same-sex marriage, and the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 weren't broad enough to change that status.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-marriage-irpt/index.html
Yes, the court made the right decision leaving it up to the states. It should help avoid the huge political backlash the court's decision in Roe v. Wade sparked.

As MLK said, the arc of the moral universal is long, but it bends towards justice. Ten years ago sodomy was a crime in several states. Twenty years from now, I think marriage equality will be the law of the land for most Americans.

Oh yes! The audacity of hope.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:45 pm

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:The young do not care and care even less for marriage, which made homosexuals succeed.
The young do not suffer from the prejudices you suffer from, and I view that as a good thing!

based on my observations, the young are very smart, very logical, and a lot less confused than some people here.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:47 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:The young do not care and care even less for marriage, which made homosexuals succeed.
The young do not suffer from the prejudices you suffer from, and I view that as a good thing!

based on my observations, the young are very smart, very logical, and a lot less confused than some people here.

A sample in a North Eastern University in a Liberal state does not constitute 'the young', Il Professore.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:49 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:The young do not care and care even less for marriage, which made homosexuals succeed.
The young do not suffer from the prejudices you suffer from, and I view that as a good thing!

based on my observations, the young are very smart, very logical, and a lot less confused than some people here.

A sample in a North Eastern University in a Liberal state does not constitute 'the young', Il Professore.

i actually didn't have them in mind when i wrote that, but the young at home and their cohort of friends.

by southindian Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:53 pm

Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:The young do not care and care even less for marriage, which made homosexuals succeed.
The young do not suffer from the prejudices you suffer from, and I view that as a good thing!

The young don't care about marriage either, so I know where their support is coming from. Don't know if that is good or bad. Considering my views a suffering is your biased opinion.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:58 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

i actually didn't have them in mind when i wrote that, but the young at home and their cohort of friends.

I expect they would emulate their parents until they are out on their own and develop their individual prejudices and biases as they experience the world by themselves.

PS: How do they feel about North India?

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:59 pm

not to worry. they have plenty of ideas and opinions not at all in accord with their parents. but on this issue we are of one mind. in fact they were surprised to discover our opinions when we discussed this issue at home. kind of took the wind out of their sail.

northindia hasn't specifically come up as a topic of discussion, but why do you ask?

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:03 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:not to worry. they have plenty of ideas and opinions not at all in accord with their parents. but on this issue we are of one mind. in fact they were surprised to discover our opinions when we discussed this issue at home. kind of took the wind out of their sail.

northindia hasn't specifically come up as a topic of discussion, but why do you ask?

Do you have to ask? Maybe you should share some of your views about North India and North Indians and see how they feel about it, especially if they have friends with North Indian parents. Unless of course your set of views on North India(ns) is just a sham for this forum.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:32 pm

Hmmm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/politics/immigration-bill-clears-final-hurdle-to-senate-approval.html wrote:On the final night of consideration by the panel, in emotional and moving testimony, both Democratic and Republican senators argued against taking up a measure that would have allowed United States citizens to apply for permanent resident status, known as a green card, on behalf of their same-sex partners.

What do you think were their reasons, Dogmatix?

by Petrichor Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:43 pm

"Though Democrats supported the measure, Republicans said such a provision would have doomed the overall bill, and the debate largely became moot on Wednesday, when the Supreme Court ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits."

It is called realpolitik.

by southindian Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:not to worry. they have plenty of ideas and opinions not at all in accord with their parents. but on this issue we are of one mind. in fact they were surprised to discover our opinions when we discussed this issue at home. kind of took the wind out of their sail.

northindia hasn't specifically come up as a topic of discussion, but why do you ask?

Do you have to ask? Maybe you should share some of your views about North India and North Indians and see how they feel about it, especially if they have friends with North Indian parents. Unless of course your set of views on North India(ns) is just a sham for this forum.

That question was not needed. I thought NorthIndias are purple in color, so kids can find out themselves about NorhIndians just like Max does.

I apologize and take that back. It's the purple color glasses that Max has on, when looking at NorthIndians. He just needs to buy 1 pair each for children.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 5:10 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Hmmm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/politics/immigration-bill-clears-final-hurdle-to-senate-approval.html wrote:On the final night of consideration by the panel, in emotional and moving testimony, both Democratic and Republican senators argued against taking up a measure that would have allowed United States citizens to apply for permanent resident status, known as a green card, on behalf of their same-sex partners.

What do you think were their reasons, Dogmatix?

Mostly because it is not required. Everyone knew the Supreme Court would rule on DOMA this week, and it was widely expected to be struck down. Without DOMA, they can't extend immigration benefits to heterosexual married couples and deny them to homosexual married couples.

by confuzzled dude Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:45 pm

Good good. I guess now only genuinely single people are contaxually discriminated.

by SomeProfile Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:47 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:*You* should know what the 80-20 rule is.
No, I don't. Why don't you say what you mean?

You could look this up in Wikipedia, if you want.
Wikipedia doesn't say how the 80-20 rule applies to gay marriage and immigration fraud. That's your own unique claim -- one that even the defenders of DOMA didn't advance, and the dissenting justices on the bench did not cite. So you will have to do your own explaining.

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:It is not as simple as just immigration fraud.
Before you try to add other arguments, why don't you first tackle the very first reason you gave?
I gave you another reason above. And you seem to have this romantic notion that fraud is quickly spotted in the immigration system.
Let us say, for the moment, that it is not. Given that with marriage equality straight marriages occur approximately 50 times more often than gay marriages, you should be more opposed to legal recognition for straight marriages than to gay marriage. Are you?

Idéfix & Hellsangel - the above argument has not been adequately settled yet. Before taking this discussion in any other direction, please do settle the above argument.

Idéfix - Don't let Hellsangel get away without giving adequate explanation about the 80-20 rule in the context of gays and immigration, as well as how gay marriage causes any practical problems.

Hellsangel - if you are not able to give proper explanation for your stance, just admit it and accept that you are merely prejudiced. And don't try to hide behind oldie proverbs like, "give them an inch". That won't get you a free pass.

by confuzzled dude Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:09 pm

SomeProfile wrote:

Idéfix & Hellsangel - the above argument has not been adequately settled yet. Before taking this discussion in any other direction, please do settle the above argument.

Idéfix - Don't let Hellsangel get away without giving adequate explanation about the 80-20 rule in the context of gays and immigration, as well as how gay marriage causes any practical problems.

Hellsangel - if you are not able to give proper explanation for your stance, just admit it and accept that you are merely prejudiced. And don't try to hide behind oldie proverbs like, "give them an inch". That won't get you a free pass.

Are we suggesting that American gay populace would prey on poor Mexican, Chinese and Indians. Damn! I see a business opportunity here, body shops will be back with a big bang. Guys/girls will be paid to get green cards probably will be mailed Green Cards like they used to do to invite Doctors in the '70s.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:14 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
southindian wrote:The young do not care and care even less for marriage, which made homosexuals succeed.
The young do not suffer from the prejudices you suffer from, and I view that as a good thing!

Another romantic notion.

We will see about that. Ten years ago, 0% of Americans lived in states where same-sex marriage was legal. Today about 30% of Americans live in states where marriage equality is the law of the land. Nine years ago, opponents of equality were on the offensive, putting constitutional amendments banning gay marriage on the ballot to increase turnout for Dubya. On election day last November, marriage equality won in all three states it was on the ballot. The tide has already turned.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:17 pm

SomeProfile wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:*You* should know what the 80-20 rule is.
No, I don't. Why don't you say what you mean?

You could look this up in Wikipedia, if you want.
Wikipedia doesn't say how the 80-20 rule applies to gay marriage and immigration fraud. That's your own unique claim -- one that even the defenders of DOMA didn't advance, and the dissenting justices on the bench did not cite. So you will have to do your own explaining.

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:It is not as simple as just immigration fraud.
Before you try to add other arguments, why don't you first tackle the very first reason you gave?
I gave you another reason above. And you seem to have this romantic notion that fraud is quickly spotted in the immigration system.
Let us say, for the moment, that it is not. Given that with marriage equality straight marriages occur approximately 50 times more often than gay marriages, you should be more opposed to legal recognition for straight marriages than to gay marriage. Are you?

Idéfix & Hellsangel - the above argument has not been adequately settled yet. Before taking this discussion in any other direction, please do settle the above argument.

Idéfix - Don't let Hellsangel get away without giving adequate explanation about the 80-20 rule in the context of gays and immigration, as well as how gay marriage causes any practical problems.

Hellsangel - if you are not able to give proper explanation for your stance, just admit it and accept that you are merely prejudiced. And don't try to hide behind oldie proverbs like, "give them an inch". That won't get you a free pass.

Yes, I am still waiting to hear how 80-20 rule applies in the context of marriage equality and immigration. It looks like that was just yet another bogeyman in a long-running series.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:43 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:not to worry. they have plenty of ideas and opinions not at all in accord with their parents. but on this issue we are of one mind. in fact they were surprised to discover our opinions when we discussed this issue at home. kind of took the wind out of their sail.

northindia hasn't specifically come up as a topic of discussion, but why do you ask?

Do you have to ask? Maybe you should share some of your views about North India and North Indians and see how they feel about it, especially if they have friends with North Indian parents. Unless of course your set of views on North India(ns) is just a sham for this forum.

what i tell my kids about my views on northindia and northindians is irrelevant to this discussion. stop with the diversionary tactics and answer the simple question i asked you -- why won't you grant homosexual people the same rights you have?

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:18 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:not to worry. they have plenty of ideas and opinions not at all in accord with their parents. but on this issue we are of one mind. in fact they were surprised to discover our opinions when we discussed this issue at home. kind of took the wind out of their sail.

northindia hasn't specifically come up as a topic of discussion, but why do you ask?

Do you have to ask? Maybe you should share some of your views about North India and North Indians and see how they feel about it, especially if they have friends with North Indian parents. Unless of course your set of views on North India(ns) is just a sham for this forum.

what i tell my kids about my views on northindia and northindians is irrelevant to this discussion. stop with the diversionary tactics and answer the simple question i asked you -- why won't you grant homosexual people the same rights you have?

Nothing diversionary about it. Just like you have certain beliefs about North Indians, a lot of people have beliefs about gay marriage.

If marriage were a right, would you need a marriage license? Why for you need to regulate it so for instance blood relatives don't marry?

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:56 pm

i don't want to deny any rights that the constitution grants me to northindians. you are welcome to have any beliefs you want, but you are not allowed to deny people the same rights you have based on your beliefs.

as for marrying blood relatives, i have a simple explanation of why it needs to be regulated. there is potential harm to any future offspring. two men marrying is not going to harm anyone except the delicate sensibilities of evangelical christians.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:22 pm

Hellsangel wrote:If marriage were a right, would you need a marriage license?

If marriage is not a right, and you are concerned about the abuse of marriage for immigration purposes, then you ought to oppose heterosexual marriage more than homosexual marriage.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:39 pm

Sorry, Il Professore and Dogmatix, I know you have your strong views for gay marriage. There are others like me with equally strong views against it. And the two views won't meet. Thankfully, 37 states in the Union still don't allow it. Let's talk when all 50 states permit it and then you can say it is the view of the majority of people. We can 'debate' this till the cows come home.

BTW, the reason the Senate, did not be include immigration benefits for gay couples was because it would be political suicide. Let's see what happens in November.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:55 pm

equal protection is NOT about the views of the majority. that's what this is about.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:58 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:equal protection is NOT about the views of the majority. that's what this is about.

No one is persecuting gay couples. Or practicing apartheid against them. Does polyamory also deserve 'equal protection'?

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:59 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Let's talk when all 50 states permit it and then you can say it is the view of the majority of people.

Sorry, you are confused. I can say it is the view of the majority of people when it is the view of the majority of people, not when all states pass marriage equality laws.

Now, here is the Wikipedia page on public opinion of same-sex marriage in the US.

Majority public support for same-sex marriage has solidified, and recent polls consistently indicate support above 50%. Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010. An August 2010 CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage, with nearly all subsequent polls showing majority support.

A May 9 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.

A March 20–24 CBS News Poll shows that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage, 39% oppose, and 8% are undecided. The same poll also finds that 33% of Americans who now think same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry say they once held the opposite view and have changed their opinion.

A March 7–10 Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36% oppose. The poll indicates that 52% of GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old now support gay marriage.

Last November, a majority of Americans voted for a president who openly supported same-sex marriage. I can say a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, because I am right.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:05 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:equal protection is NOT about the views of the majority. that's what this is about.
No one is persecuting gay couples. Or practicing apartheid against them.

Again, you are confused. The equal protection clause does not apply only when someone is persecuted, or when apartheid is practiced against them. The equal protection clause prohibits government from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." DOMA was thrown out because it made the federal government violate this.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:06 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:equal protection is NOT about the views of the majority. that's what this is about.
No one is persecuting gay couples. Or practicing apartheid against them. Does polyamory also deserve 'equal protection'?

maybe you'll understand if i put it this way -- it's not just about the right to stick one's dick in whatever consenting hole one wants to stick it in. it's also about giving gay people all the tax advantages, inheritance rights etc. that come with heterosexual marriage. it's about the right of a citizen to file a permanent residency application for an immigrant spouse regardless of what kind of genitalia they each have.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:07 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Let's talk when all 50 states permit it and then you can say it is the view of the majority of people.
Sorry, you are confused. I can say it is the view of the majority of people when it is the view of the majority of people, not when all states pass marriage equality laws.

Now, here is the Wikipedia page on public opinion of same-sex marriage in the US.

Majority public support for same-sex marriage has solidified, and recent polls consistently indicate support above 50%. Support has increased steadily for more than a decade, with supporters first achieving a majority in 2010. An August 2010 CNN poll became the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage, with nearly all subsequent polls showing majority support.

A May 9 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.

A March 20–24 CBS News Poll shows that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage, 39% oppose, and 8% are undecided. The same poll also finds that 33% of Americans who now think same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry say they once held the opposite view and have changed their opinion.

A March 7–10 Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36% oppose. The poll indicates that 52% of GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old now support gay marriage.

Last November, a majority of Americans voted for a president who openly supported same-sex marriage. I can say a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, because I am right.

There is a reason why Constitutional Amendments need to be ratified by 2/3rds of the States. Just because the most populous state decides to pass something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the will of the majority. And I would look at the polls conducted by liberal beacons like the WaPo with skepticism.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:17 pm

sorry about the crudeness, but it was a required step in the process of getting beyond what happens between two people sexually and talk about important issues that affect people's pocketbooks, bank balances, and what they leave behind for family members. gay friends have told me that what irritates them more than anything else is the attempt to trivialize colossally important issues that affect their lives by viewing them as nothing more than copulating bodies.

by Idéfix Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:20 pm

Hellsangel wrote:There is a reason why Constitutional Amendments need to be ratified by 2/3rds of the States. Just because the most populous state decides to pass something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the will of the majority. And I would look at the polls conducted by liberal beacons like the WaPo with skepticism.

Ah, some more moving of the goalpost, I see! It was not my formulation to refer to the majority of people. You said: "Let's talk when all 50 states permit it and then you can say it is the view of the majority of people." And you were wrong. It is the view of the majority when more than half of a representative sample of Americans supports a position, outside of the statistical margin of error. When that happens in poll after poll consistently, it is clearly the view of the majority of people.

And if you don't like the data you see, question the source... let me help you out here. From the same source as above:

A November 26–29 Gallup poll found that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 46% do not.
A November 16–19 CBS News poll found that 51% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 40% do not.
A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.
A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.
A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage, showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement, while 45% disagreed. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.
A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 – March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

I hope this won't make you think the Wall Street Journal is a liberal beacon. BTW, are you still trying to figure out how the 80-20 rule applies to gays and immigration?

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:24 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
No one is persecuting gay couples. Or practicing apartheid against them. Does polyamory also deserve 'equal protection'?

let me rewrite that just a bit to see how it sounds.

No one is persecuting heterosexual couples. Or practicing apartheid against them. Does polyamory also deserve 'equal protection'?

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:36 pm

southindian wrote:
Gay sexual orientation is a hobby and not norm as far as I'm concerned. People can say otherwise as much as they want.

I find gay practice silly and funny and am biased against it. Can't help you much there. Good luck if someone want to pick this hobby.

by Hellsangel Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:38 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:There is a reason why Constitutional Amendments need to be ratified by 2/3rds of the States. Just because the most populous state decides to pass something, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is the will of the majority. And I would look at the polls conducted by liberal beacons like the WaPo with skepticism.
Ah, some more moving of the goalpost, I see! It was not my formulation to refer to the majority of people. You said: "Let's talk when all 50 states permit it and then you can say it is the view of the majority of people." And you were wrong. It is the view of the majority when more than half of a representative sample of Americans supports a position, outside of the statistical margin of error. When that happens in poll after poll consistently, it is clearly the view of the majority of people.

And if you don't like the data you see, question the source... let me help you out here. From the same source as above:

A November 26–29 Gallup poll found that 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 46% do not.
A November 16–19 CBS News poll found that 51% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 40% do not.
A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.
A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.
A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage, showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement, while 45% disagreed. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.
A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 – March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

I hope this won't make you think the Wall Street Journal is a liberal beacon. BTW, are you still trying to figure out how the 80-20 rule applies to gays and immigration?

Ha ha. Nothing to figure out there. If they start granting immigration benefits to gay couples, you will see a skyrocketing of applications from 'gay' couples.

by Sponsored content