Why does gay marriage keep losing?

Originally posted by sh76
In the United States, gay marriage has now been put to a popular vote in 31 states, all in the last few years. It's record?

0-31.

That's right.

0-31.

Chew on that for a moment.

0-31.

Yes, some of those states have been the Mississippis and Arkansas of the World. But other have been Ohio, California, Michigan and now Maine, all Obama states.

ventually anyway; but it will happen faster if they take my advice. Book it.

...not sure I agree with your math on this one. Same sex domestic parntership legislation is passing in Washington State by about 9%.

Sorry to burst your bubble...another inconvienent truth. oops!😏

Originally posted by sh76
In the United States, gay marriage has now been put to a popular vote in 31 states, all in the last few years. It's record?

0-31.

That's right.

0-31.

Chew on that for a moment.

0-31.

Yes, some of those states have been the Mississippis and Arkansas of the World. But other have been Ohio, California, Michigan and now Maine, all Obama states.
...[text shortened]... ventually anyway; but it will happen faster if they take my advice. Book it.

This issue wasn't even on the radar just 10 years ago, so things are moving fast. Each time gay marriage "loses", it loses, overall, by a slimmer margin. And if you look at polls taken on attitudes toward gay marriage and see the results broken down by age group, you'll see that gay marriage would "win" if it were up to the under-45s. The trend toward greater tolerance we're seeing mirrors that of earlier civil rights movements on behalf of women and minorities. Being a conservative must be pretty depressing, really, because in the long run the only constant in the universe is change, so conservatives are always on the losing side. Always. Those against gay marriage find the bulk of their support among old timers. Those old timers will eventually die. Fresh blood takes the helm and humanity moves forward.

Be patient.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't know. It's a tough issue.

On the one hand, why not let homosexual people who love each other have the same status as similarly situated heterosexual people?

On the other hand, marriage has always been defined as a heterosexual union and marriage has always been a contract recognized by law because it helps to ensure stable families. I understand t ...[text shortened]... t of the marriage business all together and let people call themselves whatever they like.

Why call it 'marriage' when referring to a life-time oath of fidelity between persons of the same sex,thus attempting to chenge both the generally accepeted connotation and denotation of that word?
Why not just give it another name but give it a similar status in law so far as physiological differences allow?

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Why call it 'marriage' when referring to a life-time oath of fidelity between persons of the same sex,thus attempting to chenge both the generally accepeted connotation and denotation of that word?

Why not call it 'marriage' when referring to a life-time oath of fidelity between persons of the same sex, thus attempting to change both the generally accepeted connotation and denotation of that word?

Originally posted by Teinosuke
In Britain we don't have "gay marriage"; we have "civil unions" instead. A few people complain that this is unequal. Most, however, just shrug and accept that there's a different term for gay partnerships than for straight partnerships, and concentrate on the main thing: the fact that the same rights and benefits are offered.

Anyway, as soon as civil un ...[text shortened]... hanging the phrase "civil union" to "gay marriage" will cause no controversy at all.

It has become cemented in Dutch culture extraordinarily quickly, aided by the assasination of a gay right-wing politician, which caused the right-wing populace to embrace gay rights as well.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Why call it 'marriage' when referring to a life-time oath of fidelity between persons of the same sex,thus attempting to chenge both the generally accepeted connotation and denotation of that word?
Why not just give it another name but give it a similar status in law so far as physiological differences allow?

Remove all special 'rights' and privileges associated with marriage, get the gummint out of the marriage business, then for those that attach some importance to it they might like to specify that their marriage is recognised by the Imaginary Guy in the Sky Church, or the No Pooofters Church.

Everyone is happy except for the control freaks, busybodies and the initiators of force and threats of force.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Remove all special 'rights' and privileges associated with marriage, get the gummint out of the marriage business, then for those that attach some importance to it they might like to specify that their marriage is recognised by the Imaginary Guy in the Sky Church, or the No Pooofters Church.

Everyone is happy except for the control freaks, busybodies and the initiators of force and threats of force.

Sometimes there may be a reason why people want more than just a verbal agreement.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Sometimes there may be a reason why people want more than just a verbal agreement.

They are free to make their marriage contract as complex or simple as they like.

Originally posted by FMF
Why not call it 'marriage' when referring to a life-time oath of fidelity between persons of the same sex, thus attempting to change both the generally accepeted connotation and denotation of that word?

You seem to be getting even more twisted and confused as time goes on.

Originally posted by sh76
In the United States, gay marriage has now been put to a popular vote in 31 states, all in the last few years. It's record?

0-31.

That's right.

0-31.

Chew on that for a moment.

yes, it is rather unfortunate that the majority of voters in those states succumb to such simple ballots, but not everybody that can use a touch screen ballot are able to balance their checkbooks either. it's a real shame

The rhetoric out of the pro-same sex marriage camp is generally about how their opponents are ignorant bigots or hatemongers or fearmongers or whatever.

well, that's very simple. you see, you'd have to be in the frame of mind that gays are equal to you. if you fully understand that statement, you'd realize that anything less is unacceptable. if someone told me i couldn't do something that everyone else could do, i'd be pretty pissed off too. so when you listen to the usual spiel of the anti-gay marriage brigade, piecing off another gem of why gays can't have what we have, it's rather frustrating as it is obviously a civil right everyone should have. if it's a religious issue, that's all fine and dandy. to each their own, but getting a marriage certificate is devoid of religious influence. it's just a piece of paper, and i think it isn't a big deal to let them have it. common sense, really.

Folks, let me tell you something about voters: They don't like being called gullible bigots.

maybe they should think about an issue, and let it rattle around in their heads before making a decision based on a two party system. people are just tired of waiting for equal rights in a country that has advocated it since it was created. lets just do the right thing, and move onto more trying issues that involve a little more cognitive thought

They might win eventually anyway; but it will happen faster if they take my advice. Book it.

that has some merit. it's just absurd to even call this an issue. don't kid yourself, though. it will happen. maybe not today, but sooner or later the majority will realize their gross mistake on this non-issue

Originally posted by sh76
In the United States, gay marriage has now been put to a popular vote in 31 states, all in the last few years. It's record?

0-31.

That's right.

0-31.

Chew on that for a moment.

0-31.

Yes, some of those states have been the Mississippis and Arkansas of the World. But other have been Ohio, California, Michigan and now Maine, all Obama states.
...[text shortened]... ventually anyway; but it will happen faster if they take my advice. Book it.

Here is a suggestion. Let the Supremes rule that gay marriage is "OK". Soon after the public opinion should gradually shift the other direction the way you want it to.

Originally posted by bill718
...not sure I agree with your math on this one. Same sex domestic parntership legislation is passing in Washington State by about 9%.

Sorry to burst your bubble...another inconvienent truth. oops!😏

Re-read the title of this thread.

Re-read the OP.

Re-read your response.

Carefully.

I'm not going to bother busting your bubble. Read the material and burst it yourself.

Originally posted by FMF
Why not call it 'marriage' when referring to a life-time oath of fidelity between persons of the same sex, thus attempting to change both the generally accepeted connotation and denotation of that word?

why not ignore this gay marriage nonsense and stick with the original definition of marriage?

Originally posted by generalissimo
why not ignore this gay marriage nonsense and stick with the original definition of marriage?

Harems of concubines for the desirable males (and pretty much nothing for the rest). Like it was during the days of David and Solomon.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Harems of concubines for the desirable males (and pretty much nothing for the rest). Like it was during the days of David and Solomon.

what?