Same-Sex Marriage

Into statistics? Curious what everyone else thinks? Then start a poll here.

What is your stance on same-sex marriage?

I support same-sex marriage.
45
75%
I am against same-sex marriage but support civil unions.
4
7%
I oppose both same-sex marriage & civil unions, but I support some rights for same-sex couples (e.g., hospital visitation).
1
2%
I oppose any official recognition of same-sex couples, but I oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
2
3%
I support a constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be between one man and one woman and banning recognition of same-sex couples.
6
10%
I support a constitutional amendment to once again make homosexual acts illegal and banning same-sex marriage.
2
3%
 
Total votes : 60

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby mitchellmckain » Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:19 am

NH Baritone wrote:As soon as New Hampshire enacted civil unions, the push for same-sex marriage began. The same occurred in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. The codification of unfair treatment under the guise of "compromise" will not encourage the issue to go away, but instead promote its continued presence in the public forums for years to come.


Right, so is this an argument against compromise or for it? Sounds to me like it is the compromise that leads to progress for the gay rights movement. In fact I expect to hear their opponents to start using this same argument to start opposing the compromise of civil unions AND THEN the refusal to compromise will be on the other other foot! And then where will moderates like me be, with our instinctual antipathy to anyone who refuses compromise?

You see the fact of the matter is that when the gay rights movement takes the uncompromising position then people like me get their back up and feel that it isn't really about the rights of people but about them shoving their philosophy down our throats. But another fact of the matter is that the argument that compromise will eventually lead to their victory is no longer an argument of principle and people like me will not be swayed by it.

I am in fact completely open to the idea that the compromise of civil unions may eventually lead to same-sex marriage. It provides for a transition in which we are given some reassurances that some of the things we are concerned about will be addressed. It recognizes the fact that there are reservations and concerns and that is what makes it worth it. So during such a transition people will not see their world suddenly crumbling around them and thus be reassured.

On the other hand, it is also possible that civil unions will eventually win the day and the idea of same-sex marriage will be abandoned. Some of us can at least hope, cant we? LOL
Out of Skull for the Stars My first book is now available on Amazon.com
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 10316
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Same-Sex Marriage

Postby spongebob » Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:18 am

NH Baritone wrote:Interesting. Would refer to New Hampshire (motto: "Live Free or Die") as a progressive state? How about Iowa? Yet now same-sex marriage is legal in both of them.

And believe me, I'm aware of the blow-back from conservatives, to wit: N.H. Rep Apologizes for Anal Sex Talk.

But the blow-back will also come from the left whenever full marriage rights are withheld. As soon as New Hampshire enacted civil unions, the push for same-sex marriage began. The same occurred in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc. The codification of unfair treatment under the guise of "compromise" will not encourage the issue to go away, but instead promote its continued presence in the public forums for years to come.


I'm not at all surprised by that. There's always two approaches to change, the gradual approach and the step change, and both come with drawbacks. Sometimes a step change is the only sensible way to achieve the desired goal; other times the gradual approach works when the step change is impossible. Right now I'm leaning toward the gradual approach as being more effective in this case. I think the cause of homosexuals has been moving gradually in a positive direction for most of my life, which I'm sure is frustrating. Homosexuals were probably very unhappy with Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but it served the purpose of allowing homosexuals to get established so long as their sexuality wasn't made public. Now, after more than a decade of experience with this policy, the military is for the first time seriously considering lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. I don't think there's any way this could have been accomplished 17 years ago. I have a very liberal brother-n-law who absolutely hated the idea of serving with gays 17 years ago. Now I think he's kind of ambivalent. They are there; they've been there; no one's rammed him in that ass so far.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Previous

Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest