Exit Poll Analysis of Wisconsin

[JohnFKennedy]

Would you agree to two seperate possible unions mark, one dictated by the church, the other by the state?

[elcorazon]

El Corozan,

Well, that's what Republicans are arguing...the culture HAS changed already and it's not for the better.

Then I don't get what you are advocating.  Do you want to make homosexuality illegal?  Should Divorce be illegal?  or at least MUCH more difficult to attain?

[Gustaf]

There is an actual thread for this, but here goes...

I see no argument against gay marriage that isn't linked to religion, and since I think the government should be secular, that's not valid for me. Therefore I support civil unions, I think the German system, where religious marriage isn't linked to the state at all, is the way to go.

[sgpine]

It's a cultural issue. If you make states recognize gay marriages from other states you fundamentally change the culture of this nation...and the culture of human history. To not recognize what traditional marriage and traditional family mean within the social fabric...if you can't see that...it's probablty pointless for us to discuss this further.

While I don't want the Constitution amended, I would reluctantly consent to that if forces in this nation refuse to let this issue die.

So if a state says it's OK to marry my sister, you would support that? How about multiple wives?

I don't like this whole slipperly slope argument. Incest and marrying multiple people is not the issue at hand. Heck, by that logic, I can argue against homosexual marriage because people shouldn't marry lampposts, and if two men can marry, why not a man and a lamppost?

If an arguement in favor of incest or polygamy or lamppostogomy is brought before the courts it will be argued on its own merits, not the merits of the gay marriage argument.

That said, I don't think the arugment "we must remain a conservative society" is a strong enough argument to restrict people's freedoms.

I don't like the undertones of the whole "culture HAS changed already and its not for the better" arguement that government has made poor choices in the last 40 years that has ruined our culture. Which rights exactly did the government allow in the past that destroyed society? Rights of Women, Minorities? Allowing interracial marriage? (arguing something about the Welfare state is a different issue at this point, that deals with government intitlements, and not individual rights)

On that note....here's a telling statistic from atrios.blogspot.com
"
Pop Quiz

Fill in the blank.

In 1958, nine years before the Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, Gallup polled people about interracial marriages.

_____% of Whites opposed them.


no cheating.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...and the winner is... 94%!"
http://www.pbs.org/weblab/lovestories/digdeeper/pressinfo6.shtml

Most of the same arguments were made then...it is unnatural, it will destroy our culture, it goes against Christianity, etc.

[elcorazon]

yeah, it's a shame we had such "judicial activists" to lead us down such a horrible path.

by the way, I guessed 75%.  I think gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within the next 10 years.

[JohnFKennedy]

lampostogamy eh? interesting, very interesting.....

[nclib]

The people in the WTC did not run and jump from two gay men trying to marry.

Nclib,

Jesus...you gotta be kidding me. Here's the world's biggest violin playing for gays not being able to marry.

MarkDel,

Yes, that post was a bit sarcastic. I was NOT trying to trivialize the WTC attacks. If you felt that that post was in poor taste, please accept my apology. I was simply trying to illustrate the point that not all of Bush's fear stems from protecting against terrorist attacks.

There are legitimate positions against gay marriage. But there's a difference between:

a) opposing gay marriage in a way similiar to opposing vouchers, tax cuts, free trade, etc.

AND

b) being extremely fearful of the idea of gay marriage and going to epic proportions to ban it.

I am not accusing you of b, just saying that many in the religious right act that way.

I'd like to marry, all at once, a dozen 18 year old girls who look like Britney Spears, but the government won't let me, will they? And I'm sure there are some guys out there with really hot little sisters who'd like to marry them...but they can't. And I'm sure there's some sick folks who'd like to marry their mother after she divorces dad...but they can't.

WHY??? Because marriage is a state sponsored PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT. The government has a compelling and rational interest based on thousands of years of Judeo Christian tradition to limit marriage to unions between men and women. Civil Unions are another issue...if people want to contract away inheritance rights and other similiar matters, that's fine, but don't tell me Gays have a RIGHT to marry in a religious sense. If you go down that path, you might as well just abolish the formal institution of marriage.

I agree that marriage is a right not a privilege in the sense that I can't force someone to marry me. The issue is that marriage is a bond between two consenting adults. It has been a bond between a man and a woman for ages, but it also was for ages,

-a bond between one or two NON-CONSENTING adults
-a bond between a man and a woman of the same race

That's why precedent alone can't be used to oppose gay marriage.

[nclib]

Just figured I'd bounce this thread up so that MarkDel would see it...

[MarkDel]

NCLib,

Sorry I did not respond sooner. I understand your point, I just do not agree. And as for your apology on the 9/11 comments...no problem...I think I'm a fairly decent judge of people on these forums and I don't think you would be the type to purposefully trivialize such a profound matter, so I don't think it was a big deal.