|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 28, 2007 0:12:06 GMT -5
I was thinking about what Mestemia keeps saying "no legal reason". Funny thing is that back in 1996 the US government thought their was legal reason and passed a law to that effect. It was even singed by Clinton who is anything but a psycho religious nut.
The Senate voted 81-14 the house 342-67. Somehow I get the idea that a large number of people who have made careers out of the laws of this nation bought into the man and woman concept.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on Jul 28, 2007 7:02:50 GMT -5
I was thinking about what Mestemia keeps saying "no legal reason". Funny thing is that back in 1996 the US government thought their was legal reason and passed a law to that effect. It was even singed by Clinton who is anything but a psycho religious nut. The Senate voted 81-14 the house 342-67. Somehow I get the idea that a large number of people who have made careers out of the laws of this nation bought into the man and woman concept. Yea and our United States Government has such a great record in the past ... (see every vote on war powers since Bush got into office, or your choice of pork-barrel spending bill from any era ... Iraq votes ...) With Love and Light, Jedi Velarius Kenobi
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 28, 2007 9:42:00 GMT -5
I was thinking about what Mestemia keeps saying "no legal reason". Funny thing is that back in 1996 the US government thought their was legal reason and passed a law to that effect. It was even singed by Clinton who is anything but a psycho religious nut. The Senate voted 81-14 the house 342-67. Somehow I get the idea that a large number of people who have made careers out of the laws of this nation bought into the man and woman concept. Link please. And just how many times has the State of California had laws overturned? Laws made by "a large number of people who have made careers out of the laws of this nation?" It does not matter how many people support something that is wrong. Look at slavery and womens rights. Do you suppose that these being legal in the past was because a bunch of small town ignorant hics decided they liked them? Better still, what about inter-racial marriages? The same nonsensical arguments you present here against same sex marriage were used against inter-racial marriages. Now how did that turn out again....
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 28, 2007 10:24:02 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act (I quickly checked the text on one other random site as well and it appears that wiki has it correct) Congress is not always the brightest set of bulbs on the lamp. I'm not saying they are, but both sides of the isle and Clinton, who as you may recall pushed for allowing homosexuals to serve in the military made a law to keep marriage as it has been. Once again we agree though. When something is wrong it is wrong no matter how many people say it is good.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 28, 2007 14:17:50 GMT -5
Thank you for the link. Congress is not always the brightest set of bulbs on the lamp. I'm not saying they are, but both sides of the isle and Clinton, who as you may recall pushed for allowing homosexuals to serve in the military made a law to keep marriage as it has been. And it will stand until such time as it is challenged in court. Funny is it not, how the government is going out of it's way to avoid the issue? What is your theory as to why that is?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 28, 2007 20:04:19 GMT -5
My best guess is that the majority of the people (voters) in this nation will kick out politicians who force a new definition of marriage on people. Also their is a small, but very loud group who name call and label anyone who opposes making changes to benefit the "homosexual agenda." Very few politicians who vote on this issue would have any job security. Rudy has tried to run down the middle (no homosexual marriage, but some sort of domestic partner thing) and I think he has offended both sides.
Its a no win situation so those who want to keep their jobs stay quite. A few on both side place their values above their job or have a very large majority of voters who they agree with and speak up.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 29, 2007 21:57:23 GMT -5
So you claim there is a silent majority here. In all honesty, I can't bring any evidence to bear to challenge or support that, but, I guess, the burden of proof is on you: is there any evidence of such a silent majority? In all fairness, there is also an equal yet opposite group who loudly denounces the "homosexual agenda," as you called it, with name calling and labelling and all that; it seems to be a truth of politics that extremes of any sort balance themselves.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 29, 2007 22:11:48 GMT -5
If you head back to the bottom of page 6 Mestemia posted some info. Those numbers are lower than the ones I've personally run across (and I really don't want to take the time to dig them up for the sake of a few or even a dozen percentage points in a particular survey), but they do point to a majority, even if slight.
A silent majority is very common. People only make a fuss when they are unhappy. Viet-Nam the Iraq war prohibition and probably most major political battles the minority (either in numbers or power) makes the most noise. This is a vital tactic in an attempt to win, but it can create an inaccurate picture of what is going on.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 29, 2007 22:24:58 GMT -5
Okay, I lied. I did a quick check on goggle (you know the most reliable source of information in the world lol). Anyhow I found several references to studies of people who support some kind of homosexual marriage ban. Low 50's% seems to be the norm, but low 40's% where in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. This might seem small, but I think it is important. Just because only 51 or 55% or so oppose homosexual marriage it does not mean that everyone else is for it. I'll probably do a bit more checking and see if I can find anything different or more of the same. Wow this is interesting It wont paste right. It appears that only about half of the people who are not opposed to homosexual couples getting "legal status" want that status to be called marriage. Anyway their is a lot of stuff their I've not gone through it all, but I thought it was worth noting. www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 30, 2007 16:01:45 GMT -5
Interesting. This does seem to flesh out your point, at least statistically.
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Jul 30, 2007 21:22:36 GMT -5
Somewhat, but one of the studies also showed well under 50% of the people being opposed to homosexual unions/marriages.
While I'd personally love to have tons of stats that prove my every whim and personal opinion I'll settle for accurate information.
|
|
|
Post by Amalcas on Jul 30, 2007 22:31:16 GMT -5
"Accurate" is not a very good word for statistics; "approximate" is much better. However, they are still usually proximate, at least within the bounds of reasonable interpretation, which I guess is all that matters.
|
|
jedivelariuskenobi
Guide
All life is one energy, therefore, there is no i only we, and compassion then must follow
Posts: 252
|
Post by jedivelariuskenobi on Jul 31, 2007 0:54:02 GMT -5
I'm weary of numbers and statistics in this kind of thing, numbers can be presented and skewed to prove both sides of issues such as this ...
just a thought ...
Jedi Velarius Kenobi
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jul 31, 2007 7:01:47 GMT -5
I'm weary of numbers and statistics in this kind of thing, numbers can be presented and skewed to prove both sides of issues such as this ... just a thought ... Jedi Velarius Kenobi I agree. Statistics are way to easy to manipulate to saying whatever is needed/wanted to be said. Which is one reason why I do not care to use/rely upon them.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Dec 1, 2007 0:43:15 GMT -5
|
|