Gay Marriage/Civil Unions in 10 years

[Alcon]

What be it based on?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

Not the greatest methodology.  Too little consideration for socially progressive Protestants, and excessively high ranking for less-religious but still bedrock-conservative states.  Wyoming before Illinois?  Utah up so high?  Please.

The gist is right, though:  New England, the Pacific Northwest, minoritied Democratic states, the Midwest and Southwest, the Rocky Mountain states (which I'm moving for them), the Plains States, the peripheral South, the Deep South.

[Alcon]

I'm not a pro-gay enthusiast. As a matter of fact, I was a little uneasy with the concept of gay marriage.

But thanks to the vile and hateful opposition of troglodytes like you and your childhood heroes (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly), I now fully support marriage equality by whatever means, legislative or judicial.     

I'm as big of a proponent of gay marriage as there can be, but that's a nonsense reason to support it.

Then again, Rowan's reason -- if it isn't true -- is equally as disappointing.  Amazing how both sides manage to see the other as so much more insidious, but would totally be super sympathetic to the opponents if they weren't such a-holes.

[Alcon]

Perhaps my statement was poorly worded. It's not that I don't support marriage equality from every perspective, legal AND moral. I was just a little uneasy because I grew up in a society where marriage was by definition an institution solely associated with heterosexual couples. You can call it the comfort of tradition.

I understand.  Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

[Alcon]

Oh, Alcon. I actually have a question... I know the Washington legislature is gonna pass something about this issue, but what is their solution even called? Cause I know saying "everything except the name marriage" is kinda weird to say.

"Expanded domestic partnerships," I guess.  It's just expanding the current DP program to have all of the benefits of marriage.  No specific name (other than the bill names) beyond that, and "marriage in name only" etc.

[Alcon]

Bah, just call it marriage and get it over with. What is their holdup, the eastern rural regions?

Pretty much.  Western Washington would almost certainly vote for gay marriage outright.  The legislature is worried that there's a risk of a reversal.  I think the risk is well under 50%, but they're waiting until they're pretty solid things can hold up at the polls.  Pretty open about it, too.

[Alcon]

SUSA poll of 500 New York adults finds five-point plurality support for gay marriage.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c0840af2-ee80-40f5-bc79-b77a14d53000

[Alcon]

Ridiculous. Blow them out of the water in 2010.

It'll be 2009, if they manage.  And I'm reasonably sure that getting it on the ballot alone is enough to blow them out of the water.  There was a poll (I can't find where) where WA voters supported giving gays all the rights of marriage by over 20 points.  The question specifically said "all the rights of marriage."  Assuming they get on the ballot, that doesn't leave much for proponents to use.  People already know what the domestic partnerships are.

[Alcon]

Moreover why didn't they do the axis at a regular interval and then interpolate?  That makes the pattern look a lot more linear than it obviously was

[Alcon]

I hope Scalia and Thomas retire, so obama can appoint activist judges to replace them, so they can legalize gay marriage nationwide against the will of the people.

In many states it would be against the will of the people. Check out the gay marriage bans that passed in 2004.

If courts are to never make decisions against the will of the people, why do we have them?

(Not that this specific instance should necessarily be such a case, but can you answer that question?)

[Alcon]

Rhode Island is full of working-class ethnic Catholics -- still a Democratic group, but one that's definitely not on-board with gay marriage.  Mass has a lot of 'em but also a lot of "secularized Catholics."  That's the dumbed-down explanation, I'd probably screw up the smart one.

[Alcon]

That's a kind of confusingly phrased question...

[Alcon]

Holy crap. What a c**nt. Maya Angelou phones Senator Huntley in support of the marriage equality bill, and she replies with "If they gave me a million dollars, tax free, I just wouldn’t vote for it."

But now we know where the bidding starts for her votes. I wonder if she's always asked for a million dollars of if she started lower.-

Calling her a "c**nt" just because she doesn't support gay marriage, and was kind of rude about it on the phone, seems a little excessive to me

[Alcon]

It's unfair to the child that's being adopted by homosexual parents.

How dare orphans be raised in a loving environment!  And, if you follow Vander's tortured logic, there's a higher chance that both parents will be intelligent.  We just can't have children mature under intelligent, adoring parents.

People like you scare me when I think about 20 years from now. I hope this world ends by then.

Sarcastic people who want children to have loving parents?  what?

[Alcon]

It's unfair to the child that's being adopted by homosexual parents.

How dare orphans be raised in a loving environment!  And, if you follow Vander's tortured logic, there's a higher chance that both parents will be intelligent.  We just can't have children mature under intelligent, adoring parents.

People like you scare me when I think about 20 years from now. I hope this world ends by then.

Sarcastic people who want children to have loving parents?  what?

No,  paper tigers who think they have the answer for our society with their libreal socioeconomic garbage.

1. I don't think you're using the phrase "paper tigers" right.

2. When you're not actually discussing a topic intellectually, and are just complaining, don't you think that essentially makes your posts valueless?

[Alcon]

Yeah I'm using it right to describe 90% of the forum.  

Paper Tiger - meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless -wiki

The term is often used in sports to describe those with great stats, but don't deliver when it counts.

Yeah, but if you just said that you hope the world ends before those "harmless" people take power--sigh, nevermind.

This topic of gay marriage is a prime example of you not grasping reality and only using imtinamdating "intellectual" essays and lofty words to make the case for homosexual marriages.  Ignoring that as i stated libreal policies have already had a devastating effect on hetero marriages in the last 50 years

Evidence.

You're complaining that we're elitist, and then demanding that we accept your claims without questioning or analyzing them?  That's super-elitist.

[Alcon]

Ive already answered this with fezzy and gave my reason for not posting.

I checked back several pages and see no response to Fezzy.  Could you repost your evidence, even if it's just by quoting it?

[Alcon]

Liberals using The Full Faith and Credit Clause to force homosexual marriages upon other
states.    Digusting, and will make many people angry which isn't a good thing for gay rights.

There's always going to be some degree of backlash when a minority opinion begins to move toward the majority.  There already is.  People don't change their opinions without stimuli; raising the issue (even if it causes backlash) is a form of stimulus.

There are better and worse balances.  But either way you're forcing a majority position on a minority, whether it be at the state or personal level.  The only difference is in the clustering, if you get what I mean.

Sodom & Gomorrah = The united states in 20 years.

I don't understand why you so strenuously objected to labels of homophobia and then say something like that

[Alcon]

Why do people keep taking MK's trollbait though? Same question for Coburn, though he's not the issue now.

I'm not entirely convinced he's 100% to troll.  He has done some of it here, but I try to play it safe when accusing someone of being purified trollocity.  Better to be wrong that way than the other way around, I guess