Support for same sex marriage at an all time high

You know, statistics is a difficult subject. . .and it would take a very long time to explain it all to you.

So. . .why don't you keep on thinking that polls are not representative of public opinion, and leave it at that. . .

I'm sure you'll find out soon enough that, polls that are done with integrity and from sources that are not biased have very stringent validity and reliability elements built in.

 

That still doesn't answer my question. Prove the poll isn't biased.

 

I don't need to prove anything!

You don't want to believe in it. .. don't!

It's no skin off my back! You'll find out soon enough . . .maybe even by 2014!

 

Why don't you keep an eye on that, let us know when that starts.

I'm prediction you're going to be waiting a while, because no on is trying to make that argument...except...you.

- - - Updated - - -

You're the one making the claim that it is, so back up your claim or shove on.

 

You should check your recent history, it the last four years more states than ever have enacted legalized gay marriage. Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington.

The tide has turned on this fight in favor of gay marriage.

 

When will gay marriage opponents outlaw a man talking to another man, or a woman working in the same building as another woman?

 

That's a prejudiced statement there... The percentage of old people opposed may be a bit higher but the generalization isn't necessarily true all the same.

Doesn't repeating the insult for everybody to see kind of defeat the purpose of deleting the insult in the first place?

 

There is no such thing as same sex marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Why dont queers come up with their own word????

 

which is unconstitutional. just like colored water fountains and white water fountains.

 

You have the burden of proof. OP made the claim that the majority of people support gay marriage but the OP has the burden of proof to prove the poll isn't biased.

Nice try though.

 

Really? I'm FOR gay marriage just to remind you. But do tell...can any person regardless of sexual orientation marry any other person of the opposite sex? Yes they can. So technically they currently have EQUAL rights. Comparing that to that picture of yours is whats convoluted. Would it be ok or wrong for 2 straight guys to marry each other out of convenience, joint tax forms, ect?

 

Your argument is lame. Gay is a sexual behavior...not a gender or race. The only way your argument works is if you make all sexual behaviors equal and due constitutional rights under the law.

Which is interesting really now that I think of it. Currently to uphold women's "rights" we have the ability to destroy human life. So I can see pedeophilia rights take hold...especially if activists jumped up and down and cried and sobbed.

Beastiality---well Zoophila folks have rights--how can they be discriminated against? Especially since animals are not seen as a "person" with official rights. I'm pretty sure if we can destroy a human life not viewed as a "person", we can put first the rights of the Zoophilia citizen over the welfare of an animal.

The interesting thing would be... that the Catholic Church wouldn't be able to discriminate when a zoophilia arrangement---sanctified in marriage, decided to adopt a child. And all the liberals would criticize the Church for hanging on to their outdated views.

It could be an interesting future.

 

Then why is gay marriage ALWAYS VOTED DOWN at the BALLOT BOX, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA?

 

CNN Poll: Majority of Americans Want Abortions Prohibited



http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/24/cnn-poll-majority-of-americans-want-abortions-prohibited/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


oops !! Guess we'd better do what "the poll" says, right?

(Prepare for firestorm of furious Lefthypocrisy )

 

my argument is the supreme courts. interracial marriage is also a behavior.....not a gender or race.

nope. children, toasters and horses can't consent. (i know that is where you were going next)

see above

see above

see above.

I knew the stupidity was coming

 

Race equality is protected. Not behavior equality. If behavior equality was protected then it WOULD be unconstitutional to prevent sisters and brothers from marrying. That isn't the case yet because behavior is not what the courts were protecting.

Fetuses can't consent either. But that hasn't stopped one person's constitutional rights to trump the wellbeing of another. Your consent argument is moot.

 

There is nothing stopping the hospitals from recognizing civil unions now. And it would be illegal to force them to recognize civil unions in the future if they choose not to.

 

gender is protected

my consent argument destroyed your idiotic comparisons

 

Gay marriage could slow the spread of Aids.

 

Yes. Men and women must be treated equally under the law.

 

and currently they're not

 

One thing at a time, B...

 

Currently they are. Men and women are not treated differently. They are both equally treated the same.

Now...if you could convince yourself or a judge that gay is actually a third gender....so we have gays, women and men genders...then it would fit your argument that a gender was being discriminated against. But sexual orientation and sexual attraction does not make "genders". So your argument is moot.

 

Just think how much that will upset "traditional Americans"! The social change factor is huge... at the end of our lives we can reflect on how radical we were and how much we pushed the envelope. Plus we can help secure another loyal voting bloc for the Democratic party.

 

Try finding a YOUNG homophobe.

Time cures all ills.