Ah-ha! You raise a terrible point.

I'm a straight dude, and I get married. Right? Right.

So we go back to yon olden tymes when men were men and women pumped out babies in the kitchen all day. Since I was raised by southern belles who tended to not take crap off of anyone, I tend to say "alright" to most of the old-time women's liberation movements. Bra-burning, sure. Equal pay, hell yeah.

Why? Because of my wife. I love my wife more than I love me. It's just one of those things, yeah? So I want her to be just as successful or even more successful than I am. Because her happiness makes me happy. It's purely selfish, but there you go. Which is why that argument makes entirely no sense to me.

quote:

---

It's purely selfish, but there you go. Which is why that argument makes entirely no sense to me.

---

No, boxerdemon, my idea isn't terrible at all. Instead, you turn right around and prove my point.

You point out why your personal experience results in your support of women's rights. But unfortunately, in making that point, you once again illustrate that you only care about the rights of others when you see some benefit or exposure to those seeking those rights. You are driven only by your own selfishness as you yourself pointed out.

And it is that selfishness that has resulted in so many people being discriminated for so long. But the good thing is that there are many, many people today willing to stand up for the rights of others even when they don't "have a dog in the hunt", so to speak.

But any sociologist worth their salt will tell you that the base reason humans do anything is motivated by selfish desires. We live together because it helps us.

Gay marriage has not received widespread support because...well, it doesn't help us. What is in it for us? A warm fuzzy feeling? A feeling of "I helped somebody today be happy"?

That isn't there like it was for the civil rights movement or the women's liberation movement. Those two events helped us as a species move forward and on some primal level we understood that.

Gay marriage isn't the same. It never will be. Gay people can vote, gay people can hold public office, gay people can do anything a straight person can do.

Besides get married in certain states.

Its a sociological thing. I think. Because it doesn't help us, deep down we don't give a damn.

the continuing question is, why do we need to regulate the act of marriage by government anyway? We're not regulating the religious aspects of it(hell I can be ordained tonight by some BS church), we're not regulating the procreational aspects of it....why is a business transaction so important to us?

At one time it was understood that the basic unit of society was the family. Strong families were considered important for the strength of society. It was in the greater society's best interest for children to be reared in a stable, two-parent household. It was also more stable for society for men to be responsible for a family rather than leaving ******* children all over the place to be raised by a single mother with no support.

Societally, marriage helped to ensure stability.

The weakening of marriage is the weakening of the overall society. Government is now more concerned about political correctness than what is best for the long-term viability of society.

It is sad that monogamy and long-term marriage is now counter-cultural.

quote:

---

Because it doesn't help us, deep down we don't give a damn.

---

Speak for yourself, boxerdemon. There are plenty of people who can recognize and sympathize with the discrimination and pain of others even when such actions don't impact us directly and don't offer any benefit to us to stop them.

quote:

---

Gay marriage has not received widespread support because...well, it doesn't help us.

---

Gay marriage HAS received widespread support. Unanimous support? Obviously not. But the level of support certainly continues to grow. Look at the recognition of gay rights today as compared to a generation ago or two generations ago.

quote:

---

What is in it for us? A warm fuzzy feeling? A feeling of "I helped somebody today be happy"?

---

Not sure why you think the above can't be powerful motivation to right a wrong?

quote:

---

That isn't there like it was for the civil rights movement or the women's liberation movement.

---

What IS there is the same recognition that the state is enabling discrimination against a group of people.

quote:

---

Those two events helped us as a species move forward and on some primal level we understood that.

---

Just as with gay rights, there are/were people claiming that women's rights and civil rights would lead to destruction and harm to our society. Look at Dad-O-Lot's comments above concerning the weakening of marriage and recognize that many, many people blame women's rights and their entry into the workplace for eroding that strong family concept.

I'm curious, boxerdemon, just how you think the legality of gay marriage is going to prevent this society from "moving forward"?

quote:

---

Gay people can vote, gay people can hold public office, gay people can do anything a straight person can do. Besides get married in certain states.

---

And that 'Besides' is what needs to be changed. Why must there ever be a 'besides'?

I don't. You didn't read the part where I said "I dont care whether or not gays have the ability to get married" or you did read it and your translated that to mean "gays are morally bankrupt spawns of the devil who spread disease and filth".

Grow up. Widespread? No. The majority of people don't support gay marriage. That's the truth. When 50 percent plus one support gay marriage, then it has become widespread.

Learn some reading comprehension then come back and play.

quote:

---

You didn't read the part where I said "I dont care whether or not gays have the ability to get married"

---

I did read it and commented on it in the very next post. Yes I fully understand that there are plenty of people in this world who really don't care about the rights/liberties of others if it doesn't directly impact them.

quote:

---

or you did read it and your translated that to mean "gays are morally bankrupt spawns of the devil who spread disease and filth".

---

Not at all. It becomes pretty obvious that, in addition to not giving a damn because it doesn't involve you, you also don't see the issue as allowing society to move forward. But, as I previously pointed out, many people also felt that women's rights and civil rights would do nothing to advance our society either.

quote:

---

Widespread? No. The majority of people don't support gay marriage. That's the truth. When 50 percent plus one support gay marriage, then it has become widespread.

---

Following are polls showing just that, boxerdemon.
A CNN poll this month found that a narrow majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage — the first poll to find majority support[/url]

[url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx ]
For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage



So, by your own definition boxerdemon, support for gay marriage IS widespread. And it isn't just these two polls. I can link several more if you would like to make the request.

Keep in mind also the fact that the support for gay marriage is much, much stronger amongst the younger people in this country. What this suggests is that the widespread support for legal recognition of gay marriage will only become more widespread over time.

quote:

---

Learn some reading comprehension then come back and play.

---

You have yet to point out where my reading comprehension has failed me. But thanks for playing...


[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 11/14/2011 2:20p).]

Since when is 50% the definition of "widespread?" According to the data Petro posted roughly 1 in 3 Americans have supported it for around 15 years now. Seems pretty widespread to me.

1 in 3 is widespread??

So I guess 2 in 4 is overwhelming then, huh?

1 in 3 have supported legalizing gay marriage for the past decade or so. Within the past couple of years, that number has risen to the ~ 1 in 2 rate.

That is a pretty quick shift in opinion. And with those over the age of 65 making up such a large percentage of those opposed to gay marriage, the ratio of those supporting the legalization is only going to continue to increase with time.

PetroAg87 is correct. The younger age groups are continually becoming more and more in favor of national recognition of gay marriages. My personal hypothesis is that more young people have friends and family that are gay and are therefore more sympathetic, where many young people may not have come out to their grandparents. For example, my grandparents still think my cousin is living with his "friend" in Argentina because there are better jobs there. My grandparents are obscenely homophobic and anti-gay marriage. I understand that my cousin is gay and want him to be able to marry his boyfriend of the past 5 years if he wishes to do so and if it will make him happy.

Just my $.02

quote:

---

1 in 3 is widespread??

---

Yeah. If you woke up tomorrow and the news said that 1 in 3 Americans had sprouted deer antlers overnight I doubt you'd disagree with the assessment that sudden-onset antlerism was pretty "widespread."

[This message has been edited by Beer Baron (edited 11/14/2011 5:40p).]

Yea widespread means widespread.

51% means majority. I would call something widespread once it has a significant minority following.

And as mentioned the stats are skewed by the old. The younger generation is much less religious and much less concerned with social issues than the older generations.

Semantics and one Gallup poll from last year. I'd like to know how the questions were phrased, because I'd probably vote "yes, I support gay marriage" depending on the wording of the questions.

My point is that most people don't care. You have done nothing thus far to refute that. Instead, you lump me in with ultra-conservative baptists or whatever and cite anecdotes as hard evidence.

Figures. How sad.

It's a Gallup poll from each of the past 15 years. And the wording of the question is right there on the chart.

quote:

---

Semantics

---

YOU, boxerdemon, are the one who tried to drag semantics into the discussion by challenging my use of the term 'widespread'. And of course, once you did so, I immediately showed that, using YOUR definition, my usage of the term was indeed justified!

quote:

---

and one Gallup poll from last year.

---

Two polls, boxerdemon. And I have several more if you would like to look at them as well. Meanwhile, to refute my position and polls, you have provided...... zero polls.

quote:

---

I'd like to know how the questions were phrased

---

Easy enough to find that information. All you have to do is read the links I provided. But to help you out, boxerdemon, the question was phrased as "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

quote:

---

because I'd probably vote "yes, I support gay marriage" depending on the wording of the questions.

---

So now you are suggesting that people who say "Yes" to legalized marriage don't really mean it but are simply being deceived by the pollsters?

quote:

---

My point is that most people don't care. You have done nothing thus far to refute that.

---

I think the continued discussions about Constitutional marriage amendments, Proposition 8, along with all the other votes for or against legal marriages suggest that a lot of people DO care. So far however, boxerdemon, you have done nothing thus far to refute my claim or to support your own claim that most people don't care one way or the other.

quote:

---

Instead, you lump me in with ultra-conservative baptists or whatever and cite anecdotes as hard evidence.

---

Wrong! I do no such thing. You have stated, and I have acknowledged/recognized that you don't care. Conservative baptists on the other hand, DO care about gay marriage!

quote:

---

Figures. How sad.

---

How sad that you didn't read this thread more closely and are making poor assumptions as a result. Figures.

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 11/14/2011 7:12p).]

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 11/14/2011 7:10p).]

Unless the wording specifically states "I really don't care one way or the other", my point stands. You don't know what semantics means, do you? Or did you look it up on wikipedia?

You people can't read on R&P. Jesus.

quote:

---

Unless the wording specifically states "I really don't care one way or the other", my point stands.

---

Wrong. But I understand why you are making excuses to reject the polls now that your own argument has failed you. At first, you tried to deflect the argument by focusing on the semantics of the word "widespread". Using your own definition, you were shown to be wrong in your claim. Then you tried to discount the poll results by implying that the poll was isolated and unique. At which point, it was pointed out that multiple polls are all showing the same thing. And you then back pedaled some more and started claiming that the poll questions weren't proper.

And meanwhile, you have provided exactly ZERO data to back up your own claims, boxerdemon.

quote:

---

You don't know what semantics means, do you?

---

Semantics: The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text. I used the term just as defined, boxerdemon. It would appear that YOU are the one who doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

quote:

---

You people can't read on R&P. Jesus.

---

Failure by you, boxerdemon, to present logical or supported claims does not equate to a failure to read on our part. Get on back to the Football thread and whine some more about how much you hate Sherman and how qualified your support of the Aggies is. Those threads don't require a lot of intellectual discussion and appear to be better suited for you.

[This message has been edited by PetroAg87 (edited 11/14/2011 10:24p).]