Poll: Public now evenly split at 48 percent on legalizing gay marriage — in Utah

posted at 6:01 pm on January 16, 2014 by Allahpundit

I thought gay-marriage polls had lost their capacity to surprise but I was wrong. Utah is so overwhelmingly Mormon, and Mormons are so heavily opposed to legalizing SSM, that a poll of the state would necessarily produce some lopsided 30/70 result against — I thought. Not so: A third of Mormons there are now pro-legalization and the non-Mormon population is large enough (and pro-SSM enough) that, between them, they’ve made this a toss-up even in one of America’s reddest states.

For what it’s worth, there may be a silver lining for opponents here.

Residents are now evenly split on whether same-sex couples in Utah should be allowed to get state-issued marriage licences — 48 percent for and 48 percent against — and nearly three-fourths (72 percent) said same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage…

The results reflect a remarkable turn since 66 percent of Utahns who participated in the 2004 general election approved Amendment 3, which limited civil marriage to a man and a woman and barred any state recognition of other relationships such as civil unions or domestic partnerships…

Support for same-sex marriage was strongest among non-Mormons, people between ages 18 and 34 and those who described themselves as Democrats. Slightly more than a third of respondents (36 percent) said their views on same-sex marriage have shifted over time, something that was equally true of Mormons and non-Mormons. Overwhelmingly, people in both of those demographic categories said their views had become more accepting.

Mormons oppose legalizing gay marriage 32/64 while non-Mormons support it 76/21. On the lesser question of civil unions, though, they’re in sync: 65 percent of Mormons say yes versus 84 percent of non-Mormons. The latter result is, I assume, an olive branch by LDS members to gay couples to show that they don’t oppose all legal recognition of gay relationships, just the traditional concept of “marriage.” Problem is, it’s arguably harder to defend marriage laws from an equal protection challenge in court once you’ve extended substantive marriage rights to gays, even if your motive in extending those rights was well intentioned. If gay relationships are entitled to virtually every legal benefit of marriage except the label itself, a court’s going to find more often than not that withholding the label amounts to discrimination for its own sake, without a good/rational reason. The olive branch, designed to keep “marriage” as a separate sphere for straights only, actually weakens the case for it.

These numbers are interesting too:

sl

Protecting religious conscience via constitutional amendment is probably the next phase of the great gay-marriage debate — maybe even at the federal level, as there are some Democrats at the moment who are willing, if only in the name of quieting critics of legalizing gay marriage, to rhetorically endorse conscience protections. That’d be fertile ground for social cons next year if the GOP takes back the Senate. The public supports freedom of conscience in this area overwhelmingly; a two-thirds majority of both chambers in Congress isn’t out of the question, especially since red-state Democrats don’t like being seen as anti-religion. Better move fast, though, before these numbers too slowly start to erode in a country that’s becoming marginally less religious.

The other poll result above, about challenging the ruling of the federal judge on gay marriage in Utah, is where the silver lining I mentioned comes in. Even in a state that’s trending towards support for legalizing SSM, people don’t like having the rules made by judges. The Supreme Court is sensitive to that, too. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has grumbled that pro-choicers might have been better off without Roe v. Wade, since that would have left legalization to the states and that would have built a democratic legitimacy for the practice that Roe, to some extent, short-circuited. The Court’s ruling on Prop 8 last year, in which it declined the opportunity to strike down traditional marriage laws across the country, may be an example of the same logic at work. There’s almost no question that SCOTUS will, eventually, legalize gay marriage; there is a question of whether they might hold off for several years if they see the public even in conservative redoubts like Utah shifting their way. Why open itself up to “tyranny of the judiciary” charges if it can sit back and let changing electoral demographics do the job? As such, polls like this might buy more time for other conservative states to keep their marriage laws, even though they almost certainly won’t last forever.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Maybe 48% are for it, and see this as the camel’s nose in the tent for bringing back polygamy.

RSbrewer on January 17, 2014 at 11:36 AM

And here’s another, Jetboy. We have NAMBLA, but the powers that be look the other way. Yet we also have the NRA, a group that was started more or less to make sure blacks had rights against what the KKK was doing, now being attacked by some fat bastard Hollywood piece of crap whose people were marched into ovens by another leftist.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:39 PM

1
Totally true

Of course, what any of that has to do with gay marriage is beyond anyone’s comprehension.

bmmg39 on January 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM

But I’ll tell you what. The Roman Empire fell quickly. The Soviets took over Russia quickly. Cuba lost their freedom quickly. If it happens here, and it is quite possible, try to place some of the blame on yourself for taking more rope than you were entitled to.

Lanceman on January 16, 2014 at 7:52 PM

I repeat…

bmmg39 on January 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I believe polls about as much as I believe government statistics on unemployment and cpi.

bgibbs1000 on January 17, 2014 at 12:09 PM

It is up to local jurisdictions and the states to decide which social institutions benefit their populations. If they think marriage is valuable they give licenses and pave the way for marital success over other arrangements. That’s it. If there were a real need for recognizing the life-long bonds of two men or women, just as in Connecticut for many years, they would make local and then statewide laws encouraging same, so as to get more of it.

There just isn’t a socially necessary reason to recognize same sex “marriage” since there is no such thing. It is t about relationships. It’s about property rights and inheritance, a very unsexy topic that no one ever discusses. Land and property and wealth (and debt) could be held and transferred without the need for war or lawyers.

Now we have a country with enshrined state and federal laws that respect contracts, so the marital benefit is reduced to ease of inheritance/legitimacy, stability of institutions and commerce, religious adherence, and innate parental responsibility for progeny, with the threat of the state “owning” the baby or child if a competent parent isn’t assessed.

But no religion or denomination has always felt homosexual relations were moral or ever conceived of “marriage” that wasn’t male-female, since that’s its definition. That came later, because people don’t like other people to feel bad. As to state interest, it’s like caring if a grandmother can adopt her grandchild if the parents die, there is already a mechanism for that. As to some recognition of the love or living arrangement or whatever, it is up to the state and nation to legislate that if they see an abiding need. There just isn’t. Sorry if that hurts feelings. We don’t legislate for feelings. Tax benefits? Sorry, no real need to incentivize your arrangement. There wouldn’t be illegitimate kids if you don’t have a pretend marriage. They already have responsible parties or aren’t conceived yet. Is it unfulfilling and frustrating for those who won’t ever marry the opposite sex? Admittedly. Sorry, minority feelings don’t necessitate legislation. Have children already and sad your partner doesn’t have rights? Same thing I say to illegal alien children: blame your parents who knew the law and did it anyway. It is the height of selfishness to have children outside of the ideal situation for them, and complain your situation can’t be included in the ideal. Raise great kids, but take your lumps.

There is just no reason, other than emotion, to degrade the definition of marriage to include some sort of feelings or love or sexual preference. It is none of those things. If they want to “marry” and someone in a church wants to do it, fine. If my grandmother were a horse, she could have won the Derby.

winoceros on January 17, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Of course, what any of that has to do with gay marriage is beyond anyone’s comprehension.

bmmg39 on January 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM

If you can’t figure out the correlation, I can’t help you.

“It’s wonderful America has decided to join the rest of the civilized world in its forward thinking!!! Nyah!!!”

Allow me to introduce you to previous ‘forward thinking’ societies…

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Yeah, where are all the dudes denouncing the disgusting perversion that is Gizelle Bundchen and Kathy Ireland scissoring.

Maybe they dont have a HotGayGas account. :[

Jeddite on January 17, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Would you like to hear me denounce?

I don’t follow the crowd, Jackson. While many of my ‘contemporaries’ are good followers, I get no thrill watching two girls go at it.

In fact I view as quite stupid and hedonistic, and any man that allows that stuff to take place within his own marriage is asking for trouble. No good can come of it.

Do I look at internet porn? Sure. But I bypass that crap because it holds no fascination for me. And again, I also don’t advocate other people look at it [porn] nor am I proud of it. It’s simply fact. I am unmarried and have no children.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Homosexual tolerance? Canada.

Mason on January 17, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Would you like to hear me denounce?

I don’t follow the crowd, Jackson. While many of my ‘contemporaries’ are good followers, I get no thrill watching two girls go at it.

In fact I view as quite stupid and hedonistic, and any man that allows that stuff to take place within his own marriage is asking for trouble. No good can come of it.

Do I look at internet porn? Sure. But I bypass that crap because it holds no fascination for me. And again, I also don’t advocate other people look at it [porn] nor am I proud of it. It’s simply fact. I am unmarried and have no children.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 12:36 PM

A holier than thou speech goes right before a fall. The feds should be there in a jiffy to check out what porn you “bypass.”

Panther on January 17, 2014 at 12:59 PM

Would you like to hear me denounce?

I don’t follow the crowd, Jackson. While many of my ‘contemporaries’ are good followers, I get no thrill watching two girls go at it.

In fact I view as quite stupid and hedonistic, and any man that allows that stuff to take place within his own marriage is asking for trouble. No good can come of it.

Do I look at internet porn? Sure. But I bypass that crap because it holds no fascination for me. And again, I also don’t advocate other people look at it [porn] nor am I proud of it. It’s simply fact. I am unmarried and have no children.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Please dont be a furry, Lanceman. :[

Jeddite on January 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Of course, what any of that has to do with gay marriage is beyond anyone’s comprehension.

bmmg39 on January 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM

If you can’t figure out the correlation, I can’t help you.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Well, most gay people, like most straight people, denounce NAMBLA, so it must be that you think the fact that the NRA is being targeted by a left-wing Hollywood filmmaker is that fault of gays.

bmmg39 on January 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Well, most gay people, like most straight people, denounce NAMBLA, so it must be that you think the fact that the NRA is being targeted by a left-wing Hollywood filmmaker is that fault of gays.

bmmg39 on January 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Yet, NAMBLA still exists and is paraded proudly in certain circles. Now, should the KKK ‘demonstrate’, it’s all over media where these haters are. I never see stories about NAMBLA in main stream news.

I was using that as an example. Weinstein’s crap has nothing to do with gays. The comparison was simply an example of blatant hypocrisy, genius.

Please dont be a furry, Lanceman. :[

Jeddite on January 17, 2014 at 1:02 PM

You’re gonna need to explain to me what a furry is, I’m afraid.

Kinda like how a certain commenter needs to identify what color panther it is.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Well, most gay people, like most straight people, denounce NAMBLA,…

bmmg39 on January 17, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Sorry, I call bullshiat – my brother and his girlfriend recently vacationed in Key West, and witnessed a gay pride parade, in all it’s flamboyance. And among the floats was a NAMBLA float, and not a peep in protest was heard. No arm-failing, no protests, NOTHING. And they took pictures to provide it. That shiat ain’t gonna fly in a St. Patty’s Day parade, so why was it accepted there?

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Now, should the KKK ‘demonstrate’, it’s all over media…

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Kinda like how a certain commenter needs to identify what color panther it is.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 1:23 PM

You seem to worry a lot about the color of someone’s skin.

Panther on January 17, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Poll: Public now evenly split at 48 percent on legalizing gay marriage — in Utah

Yet another fraudulent poll provided by gay activist liars.

California had a poll that claimed 68% of Californians were for gay marraige! Then, 2 days later, the issue LOST in an actual election.

This is nothing but propaganda.

Freddy on January 17, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Saltyron on January 17, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Correct. In fact, the name NAMBLA already implies ‘gay’. Actually, it doesn’t imply, it is an ‘advocacy’ group for gay sex between men and boys. Hence the name.

Oh, I get it. The ‘normal’ gays denounce NAMBLA.

Dude #1 “*whispers* Hey, are you gay?”
Dude #2 “Yeah.”
Dude #1 “Wanna go to a NAMBLA meeting with me tonight?”
Dude #2 “Get away from me, you a$$hole. I’ll have none of your defining deviancy down bullsh!t.”

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Maybe 48% are for it, and see this as the camel’s nose in the tent for bringing back polygamy.

RSbrewer on January 17, 2014 at 11:36 AM

This sounds familiar. Hmm, where have I heard this before?…..

Ah yes!

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to [that], then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

The “[that]” he was speaking about was gay people having consensual sex in the privacy of their own home. He said it in April of 2003 before the Supreme Court issued their opinion in the Lawrence case and the sodomy laws were struck down. There’s no mention of gay marriage; the sodomy ruling alone was supposed to be enough to push us into the rest of that parade of horribles. More than ten years after SCOTUS ruled you do have the right Santorum was warning about there have indeed been challenges to the bigamy and incest laws and those law have stood. Determining whether Santorum is a liar, an idiot or both is something I’ll leave to you to work out on your own time.

But for now I think it might be time to retell the old tale of “The Boy Who Cried ‘Polygamy!’”… er, I mean “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’”. He cried “Wolf!”, not “Polygamy!”… Sorry, sometimes it’s difficult to keep the two straight.

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 2:25 PM

There is no credibility to the poll. This is the kind of issue that people say what they think the interviewer wants them to say to look good. I would bet your life that it is 70/30 today against SSM.

inspectorudy on January 17, 2014 at 2:31 PM

kingsjester on January 17, 2014 at 9:45 AM

kingjester, you seem to hold a very upright, ethical and Christian Conservative position on traditional marriage.

Could you tell us more about the meaning and purpose of traditional marriages? Particularly the part about how it should be between one man and one woman, till death do them part, solemnly and gravely promised before Almighty God Himself.

DarkCurrent on January 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

I mean traditional marriage, singular. Please excuse the typo.

DarkCurrent on January 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

There is no credibility to the poll. This is the kind of issue that people say what they think the interviewer wants them to say to look good. I would bet your life that it is 70/30 today against SSM.

inspectorudy on January 17, 2014 at 2:31 PM

You would bet someone else’s life it’s 70/30 but would you bet your own?

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 3:44 PM

But for now I think it might be time to retell the old tale of “The Boy Who Cried ‘Polygamy!’”… er, I mean “The Boy Who Cried ‘Wolf!’”. He cried “Wolf!”, not “Polygamy!”… Sorry, sometimes it’s difficult to keep the two straight.

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Will SCOTUS rule that polygamy must be blessed by the state? Or incest?
They may or they may not.
But this just goes to show how unprincipled their position and yours is.
It will be fun to see them go to all the contortions you and others go to in order to try to draw some logical or legal or any other kind of distinction between “gay marriage” and polygamy. It will be fun to watch the polygamists throw ALL of your arguments for state recognition of gay marriage back in the face of the justices.
Will Kennedy opine about the state’s requirement to grant polygamous relationships “dignity” because of the children (and unlike gay unions, polygamist ones actually produce their own children)?
Will Kennedy opine that these relationships deserve all the same protections that any other family gets. For the children? For human dignity? Will he say that only hatred can explain why someone would be against state assistance to such unions?
The same SSM crowd that takes up the mantle of “equal protection” and “due process” will turn into the hateful bigots.

gwelf on January 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM

Dude #1 “*whispers* Hey, are you gay?”
Dude #2 “Yeah.”
Dude #1 “Wanna go to a NAMBLA meeting with me tonight?”
Dude #2 “Get away from me, you a$$hole. I’ll have none of your defining deviancy down bullsh!t.”

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 2:00 PM

NAMBLA seems to be an obssession limited to conservatives. In fact the only reason I know what it is or that the organization even exists, is that I am a regular of RedState and Hotair, where NAMBLA is championed like Godwin’s law. Most LGBTs don’t even know it exists, and would be frankly disgusted to learn what it represents.

ZachV on January 17, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Most LGBTs don’t even know it exists, and would be frankly disgusted to learn what it represents.

Oh yeah, I’m sure that’s it, Zack boy.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 6:45 PM

…a lot of gay Mormons?

KOOLAID2 on January 17, 2014 at 7:33 PM

Oh yeah, I’m sure that’s it, Zack boy.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Of course. That’s why “gay” rights groups have been working for decades to eliminate all age of consent laws.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/10/the-next-homosexualist-goal-elimination-of-age-of-consent-license-for-pedophiles/

And that’s why the APA recently had to correct their “error” in referring to pedophilia as a sexual “orientation.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/31/apa-correct-manual-clarification-pedophilia-not-se/

JannyMae on January 17, 2014 at 7:47 PM

JannyMae on January 17, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Ah, you don’t have to convince me, Janny. Ol’ Zack-boy is either covering his own ass or covering up for his kind.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Will SCOTUS rule that polygamy must be blessed by the state? Or incest?
They may or they may not.
But this just goes to show how unprincipled their position and yours is.

SCOTUS could hypothetically rule on a number of things but crying “Slippery slope!” when it’s been cried before and then didn’t happen shows how silly and out of touch your position is.

It will be fun to see them go to all the contortions you and others go to in order to try to draw some logical or legal or any other kind of distinction between “gay marriage” and polygamy. It will be fun to watch the polygamists throw ALL of your arguments for state recognition of gay marriage back in the face of the justices.

Since number of participants and gender of participants are distinct issues I don’t think it will be all that fun. It’ll probably be short.

Will Kennedy opine about the state’s requirement to grant polygamous relationships “dignity” because of the children (and unlike gay unions, polygamist ones actually produce their own children)?
Will Kennedy opine that these relationships deserve all the same protections that any other family gets. For the children? For human dignity? Will he say that only hatred can explain why someone would be against state assistance to such unions?

I suppose it’s possible but I wouldn’t bet on it.

The same SSM crowd that takes up the mantle of “equal protection” and “due process” will turn into the hateful bigots.

gwelf on January 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM

You’re being a little presumptuous there, don’t you think?

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 8:12 PM

JannyMae on January 17, 2014 at 7:47 PM

A slippery slope to pedophilia too! Awesome! I wonder if this is the first time this argument been tried…….

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 8:19 PM

The same SSM crowd that takes up the mantle of “equal protection” and “due process” will turn into the hateful bigots.

gwelf on January 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM

You’re being a little presumptuous there, don’t you think?

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 8:12 PM

He is. I suspect you’ll “reconsider” polygamy once you’ve drug SSM past the finish line.

DFCtomm on January 17, 2014 at 8:36 PM

He is. I suspect you’ll “reconsider” polygamy once you’ve drug SSM past the finish line.

DFCtomm on January 17, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Is there any logical reasoning behind that supposition or are you just making things up?

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 8:46 PM

kingjester, you seem to hold a very upright, ethical and Christian Conservative position on traditional marriage.

Could you tell us more about the meaning and purpose of traditional marriages? Particularly the part about how it should be between one man and one woman, till death do them part, solemnly and gravely promised before Almighty God Himself.

DarkCurrent on January 17, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Divorce is a rationale for gay marriage? Is that supposed to be some sort of clever “gotcha”?. No one’s still answered on what basis ANY marriage is to be prohibited.

ddrintn on January 17, 2014 at 9:15 PM

The same SSM crowd that takes up the mantle of “equal protection” and “due process” will turn into the hateful bigots.

gwelf on January 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM

You’re being a little presumptuous there, don’t you think?

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 8:12 PM

He is. I suspect you’ll “reconsider” polygamy once you’ve drug SSM past the finish line.

DFCtomm on January 17, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Of course, seeing that there is no basis for objecting to it. “Tradition”? LOL

ddrintn on January 17, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Will Kennedy opine about the state’s requirement to grant polygamous relationships “dignity” because of the children (and unlike gay unions, polygamist ones actually produce their own children)?
Will Kennedy opine that these relationships deserve all the same protections that any other family gets. For the children? For human dignity? Will he say that only hatred can explain why someone would be against state assistance to such unions?

I suppose it’s possible but I wouldn’t bet on it.

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Why not?

ddrintn on January 17, 2014 at 9:17 PM

Of course, seeing that there is no basis for objecting to it. “Tradition”? LOL

ddrintn on January 17, 2014 at 9:16 PM

If “tradition” is the only reason you can think of to oppose polygamy then you need more help than I can give out through the internet.

Actually, wait a minute…. David, Solomon, Lamech, Abraham, Jacob…… and that’s just off the top of my head! Seems to me if you want to cite tradition you’re giving the polygamists quite a weapon to use.

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM

A slippery slope to pedophilia too! Awesome! I wonder if this is the first time this argument been tried…….

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Please explain why the gay activist lobby has been pushing for the repeal of all age of consent laws since the 1970′s?

It’s not an “argument.” It’s an objective fact.

Just because you hold your hands over your ears and scream “la-la-la, I can’t hear you,” doesn’t mean that there aren’t groups lobbying for this.

The question is, why, if they don’t promote pedophilia?

You don’t like the answer, which is why you won’t consider the truth.

JannyMae on January 18, 2014 at 12:13 AM

Ah, you don’t have to convince me, Janny. Ol’ Zack-boy is either covering his own ass or covering up for his kind.

Lanceman on January 17, 2014 at 8:09 PM

I know.

I guarantee you alchemist didn’t even click on either of the links. Willful ignorance is a trademark of the gay/sex marriage promoters.

JannyMae on January 18, 2014 at 12:15 AM

Actually, wait a minute…. David, Solomon, Lamech, Abraham, Jacob…… and that’s just off the top of my head! Seems to me if you want to cite tradition you’re giving the polygamists quite a weapon to use.

alchemist19 on January 17, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Ah, the old “there were polygamists in the bible, therefore God condones polygamy” routine. We’ve never seen that one before, have we?

You are one of the most dishonest commenters on this site, and I so enjoy watching you get your ass handed to you on every one of these threads.

Carry on!

JannyMae on January 18, 2014 at 12:18 AM

Divorce is a rationale for gay marriage? Is that supposed to be some sort of clever “gotcha”?. No one’s still answered on what basis ANY marriage is to be prohibited.

ddrintn on January 17, 2014 at 9:15 PM

My comment was just a request for kingjester to expand more on his thoughts regarding traditional marriage, particularly with regard to divorce, as seen from the Conservative Christian point of view.

DarkCurrent on January 18, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Ah, the old “there were polygamists in the bible, therefore God condones polygamy” routine. We’ve never seen that one before, have we?

I assumed it would be clear that I’m being a bit facetious; I’ve argued repeatedly that “It’s tradition!” is in and of itself not a good reason to do anything.

You are one of the most dishonest commenters on this site,

Have there been other times where I was being facetious and you didn’t pick up on it? I strive to be extremely honest. Maybe if you could highlight an example of where you think I was being dishonest I can explain it to you and clear the air.

and I so enjoy watching you get your a** handed to you on every one of these threads.

Carry on!

JannyMae on January 18, 2014 at 12:18 AM

This is puzzling. When I do engage in these threads and go against the conventional wisdom I have the benefit of being right and having the facts on my side. Given those advantages I assume it’s still theoretically possible I could mess up and have something handed to me but I don’t recall it ever happening. Maybe, just like when you accused me of being dishonest, this is another example of you not understanding what you’re reading. Perhaps you can also highlight an example of me having my a** handed to me and I can explain in simpler terms whatever you didn’t get the first time. :)

alchemist19 on January 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

I assume it’s still theoretically possible I could mess up and have something handed to me but I don’t recall it ever happening.

alchemist19 on January 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

You’ve had your ‘ass’ handed to you already. But, I guess if you don’t click the link and see it, it didn’t happen, nor is it ever likely to.

Tell us again how American forces are nowhere near Baghdad, Bob.

Lanceman on January 18, 2014 at 6:50 PM

You’ve had your ‘a**’ handed to you already. But, I guess if you don’t click the link and see it, it didn’t happen, nor is it ever likely to.

Tell us again how American forces are nowhere near Baghdad, Bob.

Lanceman on January 18, 2014 at 6:50 PM

First off as it relates to the stronger language, I can tell based off the mentality and the level of thought that goes into a lot of the argument here against same-gender marriages that there is a large number of children present so for their sakes let’s tone it down with the adult words.

Now as to your link, I think you made a mistake and posted the wrong one. Rather than talk about something having to do with homosexuals should be granted access to the legal status of marriage you’re highlighting a problem with some loose wording in a proposed bill relating to conversion therapy. Whether conversion therapy should be banned, and the language that should be used to ban it if we decide to go that route have nothing at all whatsoever to do with the marriage question.

If that was in fact the link you intended to post it would explain how you have arrived at the false notion that I have had my backside handed to me in an argument on this issue; it’s because you clearly don’t have any concept of what an argument and the issues around it, related and not related, are.

alchemist19 on January 18, 2014 at 7:10 PM

I don’t believe this poll for a second. It’s always been true that opponents of gay marriage poll lower than supporters. I don’t think it’s fair to poll gay marriage popularity when you’re also trying to have it legalized regardless if it’s popular or not. CA voted twice to define marriage as a man and woman and yet it’s legal. People see the fix is in.

jas88 on January 19, 2014 at 1:25 AM

Now as to your link, I think you made a mistake and posted the wrong one.

alchemist19 on January 18, 2014 at 7:10 PM

‘Pedophilia is a sexual orientation under CA bill?’ is the wrong one?

Simply because the question is POSED is reason enough that degeneracy has taken hold, aided and abetted by this “It’s about love! Why won’t you let homosexuals love each other??? You lousy conservative!!!”

It is coming, whether you believe it or not.

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Lanceman on January 20, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Looks like it’s Option #2!

Quite simply, your problem is you just don’t understand what you’re reading. I’ll do my best to explain it to you.

There is a segment of the population who believes that if their daughter or son happens to be gay that they can somehow change their child’s sexual orientation by means of therapy. One group that offered such services was the recently shut down Exodus International who claimed their treatment methods were more than 99% ineffective. There’s evidence that not only are these conversion efforts ineffective, but they can actually cause harm to the child because the ineffective treatment and inability to change leads to feelings of isolation, rejection and depression. So because these alleged treatment methods are at best ineffective and quite possibly harmful a number of states have sought to ban them.

The trouble here is that the legislation you’ve called into question is overly broad. The goal is to protect children from harm but in writing something that forbids any effort to change a person’s sexual orientation you would also be forbidding treating pedophiles because pedophilia is held to be a unique sexual orientation that is distinct from heterosexuality or homosexuality. If the bill specifically banned conversion therapy for homosexuals and heterosexuals there would be no problem with it at all as relating to treatment for pedophiles.

And all of this, ALL of it, is 100% irrelevant to the issue of whether or not homosexual couples should be granted marriage licenses. Conversion therapy is not marriage and pedophiles are distinct from heterosexuals or homosexuals. Do you really not understand this?

If the “it” that you’re afraid is coming is the elimination of the age of consent then you’re either being mislead by charlatans who are trying to scare you or you’re not thinking.

alchemist19 on January 21, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Sodomania to infiniti and beyond!

Murphy9 on January 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4