Atleast most support civil unions...

WASHINGTON (CNN) ? A majority of Americans continue to back civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but oppose legalizing same-sex marriages, according to a new national poll.

The Pew Research Center survey's Friday release comes on the eve of President Barack Obama's speech in front of gay rights advocates at the Human Rights Campaign banquet in the nation's capital. The following day, same-sex activists plan to march on the Mall in Washington.

According to the poll, 57 percent of people questioned support civil unions, a slight uptick, with 37 percent opposed. The survey suggests that 53 percent oppose legalizing same sex marriage, with 39 percent in favor, basically unchanged from a year ago.

The poll indicates that more than six in 10 say say gays and lesbians face a lot of discrimination, more than any other group asked about in the survey.


Exit polls from last November's presidential election suggest that gay, lesbian and bisexual voters overwhelming backed Obama. Many of them had high expectations that Obama would bring results for them on gay rights issues once he entered the White House, and some are now growing impatient with the slow pace of change.

The Pew Research Center poll was conducted in August, with 4,013 people questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Poll: Americans support civil unions, oppose same-sex marriage - Blogs from CNN.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

WASHINGTON (CNN) ? A majority of Americans continue to back civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but oppose legalizing same-sex marriages, according to a new national poll.

The Pew Research Center survey's Friday release comes on the eve of President Barack Obama's speech in front of gay rights advocates at the Human Rights Campaign banquet in the nation's capital. The following day, same-sex activists plan to march on the Mall in Washington.

According to the poll, 57 percent of people questioned support civil unions, a slight uptick, with 37 percent opposed. The survey suggests that 53 percent oppose legalizing same sex marriage, with 39 percent in favor, basically unchanged from a year ago.

The poll indicates that more than six in 10 say say gays and lesbians face a lot of discrimination, more than any other group asked about in the survey.


Exit polls from last November's presidential election suggest that gay, lesbian and bisexual voters overwhelming backed Obama. Many of them had high expectations that Obama would bring results for them on gay rights issues once he entered the White House, and some are now growing impatient with the slow pace of change.

The Pew Research Center poll was conducted in August, with 4,013 people questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Poll: Americans support civil unions, oppose same-sex marriage - Blogs from CNN.com

---

The fact of the matter is everyone has the right to choose who they will be involved with in this life. Even if we stand in opposition to the lifestyle we are still a democracy and do not hold the right to tell someone who they can choose to be with in this life. On the other hand we do not have to give them the rights as a man and a woman, or a couple.


I get the feeling that homosexuals present to everyone that they just want the right to marry, but marriage is between a man and a woman and has always been. If this happens it could destroy the concept of what marriage really is. This could also open a door for people to be able to argue their right to have more than one wife.



THe sad thing is when people stand up against this movement they are labeled as bigots for not supporting that lifestyle.

I think marriage is between a man and woman but that is just what I think and believe.With that being said I really don't care whether someone gets married to another of the same sex or not because it is not my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valour

The fact of the matter is everyone has the right to choose who they will be involved with in this life. Even if we stand in opposition to the lifestyle we are still a democracy and do not hold the right to tell someone who they can choose to be with in this life. On the other hand we do not have to give them the rights as a man and a woman, or a couple.


I get the feeling that homosexuals present to everyone that they just want the right to marry, but marriage is between a man and a woman and has always been. If this happens it could destroy the concept of what marriage really is. This could also open a door for people to be able to argue their right to have more than one wife.



THe sad thing is when people stand up against this movement they are labeled as bigots for not supporting that lifestyle.

---

Why don't we have to give the same rights as a man and woman? Why? Give me one logical reason?
How about they just want the rights as anyone else? And why would I care if someone has more than one wife?


And a lot of it is bigotry, I mean disagreeing with it isn't, but there's pure hatred involved with some.



http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/...hts/index.html


Hopefully this admin. will makes some steps in the right direction.

I have no problem with homosexuals getting the same right. Two members of the same sex who live together should be able to share insurance benefits, make decisions on health, etc. However, I will never understand why two homosexuals would want to engage in a religous ceremony that they clearly do not even believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pvfan

I have no problem with homosexuals getting the same right. Two members of the same sex who live together should be able to share insurance benefits, make decisions on health, etc. However, I will never understand why two homosexuals would want to engage in a religous ceremony that they clearly do not even believe.

---

Well they aren't wanting to go into anyone's church or make some pastor marry them, has little to do with a religious aspect. And why is it assumed that they don't believe? Isn't everyone a sinner? Why is their sin this great sin or any worse than everyone elses? I don't get it.

The sin of homoseuxality imo is not worse. However, it's a lifestyle they are choosing to live. The only way one imo could be forgiven for that sin is to ask for forgivness and live another lifestyle. To do this, the marriage would have to be nullified. To me marriage is a religous ceremony.

I would have no problems if homosexuals were able to receieve the exact same benefits of married people.
If you want to classify marriage as a religious ceremony, then make sure that homosexuals are able to receive the exact same rights and benefits as married people when they get civil unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pvfan

The sin of homoseuxality imo is not worse. However, it's a lifestyle they are choosing to live. The only way one imo could be forgiven for that sin is to ask for forgivness and live another lifestyle. To do this, the marriage would have to be nullified. To me marriage is a religous ceremony.

---

But the lifestyle is really that bad? The sexual aspect is the only real sin, much more in the Bible against straight sex than gay. What about if an atheist wants to get married? I mean should it be civil unions with them? Should ones that divorce be allowed to remarry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

But the lifestyle is really that bad? The sexual aspect is the only real sin, much more in the Bible against straight sex than gay. What about if an atheist wants to get married? I mean should it be civil unions with them? Should ones that divorce be allowed to remarry?

---

Is the lifestyle really that bad? From a religious standpoint yes.

What about if an atheist wants to get married? I have no clue why an atheist would want to engage in a religious ceremony either.

Should ones that divorce be allowed to be remarried? If they want to take part in a religious ceremony that compares to their beliefs.

They should get the same rights, marriage is a religious ceremony not a government matter.

if marriage was not a government issue there would be no extra benefits from getting married.

but it does, that makes it a government issue

I agree, what I'm trying to say is that the benefits should be given to couples (regardless of sex) yet marriage should be religous ceremony.

So what you want is, that the term "marriage" only be reserved for the religious?

It's not what I exactly want, thats what it is. If it wasn't people wouldn't have religous leaders conducting the ceremonies.

I see what you're saying and all, but something has to give. I think this is a major injustice going on here in the U.S. and it's ignored because of the ways gays are looked at. Something has to give, especially if it's just battle over the terms.

They are fighting for the wrong thing imo, they should be fighting for equal rights not marriage. I think open homosexuals will have a much harder time achieving equality than women or minorities due to the problems they cause. Not sure we'll see it in our lifetime.

Lets remember, said benefits are set by companies and insurance providers. One thing that I think scares them about same sex benfits is that its a lot easier for two buddies (guys or gals) to pal up and live together and be able to get along and have a union and raising the cost of all of those benefits that are extended. Im sure there are fraudulent situations between male/female relationships to garner these benefits for another, but it would seem too easy in a same sex situation IMO. I think that is part of it from a business owner/insurance agency standpoint.

How can we say marriage is a "religious" ceremony when if my wife and I had wanted to, we could have gotten a license, went to the courthouse, and had a judge legally marry us, no God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to it?

This is purely a legal issue dressed up in a moral issue's clothing.

Sure you can, and I think thats what homosexuals should do. Yet, what you see on tv is religous leaders marrying them where it is legal. The government needs to give them benefits and outlaw marriage, it would save a lot of headaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pvfan

Sure you can, and I think thats what homosexuals should do. Yet, what you see on tv is religous leaders marrying them where it is legal. The government needs to give them benefits and outlaw marriage, it would save a lot of headaches.

---

Let churches disallow homosexuals from getting married in churches if they want, but what business of it of a church or its' members if a homosexual couple wants to legally get married w/o the God/Jesus/Holy Spirit part of things put into it. It's still the same thing, just by another name--and most of all it's legal. And...it doesn't get in the way of churches having sanctified marriages occuring in their places of worship.

It's a simple issue to me, but people have been arguing about it for quite a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pvfan

Sure you can, and I think thats what homosexuals should do. Yet, what you see on tv is religous leaders marrying them where it is legal. The government needs to give them benefits and outlaw marriage, it would save a lot of headaches.

---

That's their own church though, any pastor can do that or refuse that, making it legal will never change that. They aren't wanting to go into anyones churches and make them marry them or something, having a pastor do it is usually a personal thing and has nothing to do with it.

Interracial couple denied marriage license - Race & ethnicity- msnbc.com

I'm sure most will think that this is wrong, denying an interracial couple a marriage license, but denying a gay/lesbian couple is okay? Don't get the hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

Interracial couple denied marriage license - Race & ethnicity- msnbc.com

I'm sure most will think that this is wrong, denying an interracial couple a marriage license, but denying a gay/lesbian couple is okay? Don't get the hypocrisy.

---

Sure you are very right that the justice of the peace denying to marry the interracial couple is very wrong...but yes for a pastor or clergy to deny a gay/lesbian couple is not wrong and okay by all means...one is not against the law or God's law and the other is plain and simple and how it should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuuvapitt

Sure you are very right that the justice of the peace denying to marry the interracial couple is very wrong...but yes for a pastor or clergy to deny a gay/lesbian couple is not wrong and okay by all means...one is not against the law or God's law and the other is plain and simple and how it should be.

---

It's fine to say that as a believer, but don't forget for a second that it wasn't that long ago in the south (and really a lot of the country) that interracial marriage was being attacked just as blindly and belligerently by religious leaders as gay marriage/civil unions are today.

I still remember hearing preachers when I was little bring up in a sermon how the "intermingling of races" is bad, and quoting bible verses to try to back that stance up. There's probably still some of those today, they're just not very vocal anymore.

I know exactly what Cane is talking about, years ago the issue in Southern US states was interracial marriage, which was outlawed in many Southern states until the late 20th century.

Stripes, I see what you are saying, but it is just as likely for a man and a woman to fake a marriage to get the benefits, to say gays are more likely to scam the system is nothing but conjecture, fiction. How many people marry for green cards?

To me, this whole mess would be solved if homosexuals were able to go to a courthouse, get a marriage license and receive the same benefits.
If a church does not want to marry gays, thats fine, thats their private choice.
But to make it illegal for gays to get legally married in a non-religious ceremony is proof of religious influence on national politics, which I have major problems with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoeburnCane

It's fine to say that as a believer, but don't forget for a second that it wasn't that long ago in the south (and really a lot of the country) that interracial marriage was being attacked just as blindly and belligerently by religious leaders as gay marriage/civil unions are today.

I still remember hearing preachers when I was little bring up in a sermon how the "intermingling of races" is bad, and quoting bible verses to try to back that stance up. There's probably still some of those today, they're just not very vocal anymore.

---

We must remember that the color of someones skin is is what they are and being a homosexual is something that someone does. These two things cannot be compared because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valour

We must remember that the color of someones skin is is what they are and being a homosexual is something that someone does. These two things cannot be compared because of that.

---

That's according to you and your views, not everyone elses. I believe it's something you're born with, so that doesn't hold true to me and yes, they can be compared. It's only different because you can see with your eyes someone is black, you can't see a gene inside someone, they can't help it either. Even if it was a choice, which I DO NOT think it is, what difference would that make? Their choice to do that has absolutely no effect on anyone else daily life, definitely not negatively, which would be the only reason that'd be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

That's according to you and your views, not everyone elses. I believe it's something you're born with, so that doesn't hold true to me and yes, they can be compared. It's only different because you can see with your eyes someone is black, you can't see a gene inside someone, they can't help it either. Even if it was a choice, which I DO NOT think it is, what difference would that make? Their choice to do that has absolutely no effect on anyone else daily life, definitely not negatively, which would be the only reason that'd be a problem.

---

There is no scientific evidence that would suggest that anyone is born with a gay gene. Just as you say that was my opinion, that is your opinion as well.

as I posted before, most science does not say that there is a gay gene

but as i posted before, they do agree that gays have little or no feeling of a choice in their decision

not allowing gays to get married is religion intertwined with politics, and there is no place for that in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valour

There is no scientific evidence that would suggest that anyone is born with a gay gene. Just as you say that was my opinion, that is your opinion as well.

---

Your statement is flawed for several reasons. 1) The scientific aspect of finding out the reason why homosexuals are homosexuals, is fairly new. Modern science is fairly new and this has been a very taboo subject. 2) You're referring to one explanation/theory, there are many that don't even have to do with a gene. Is it clear right now? No, just for the reasons I told you. BUT it is believed that it isn't a choice, that someone just wakes up and chooses to be gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

Your statement is flawed for several reasons. 1) The scientific aspect of finding out the reason why homosexuals are homosexuals, is fairly new. Modern science is fairly new and this has been a very taboo subject. 2) You're referring to one explanation/theory, there are many that don't even have to do with a gene. Is it clear right now? No, just for the reasons I told you. BUT it is believed that it isn't a choice, that someone just wakes up and chooses to be gay.

---

Why no need for the study years ago? All a sudden people are born gay?? It must be in the water, right? Actually there were many studies done that would suggest it was a mental thing.The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valour

Why no need for the study years ago? All a sudden people are born gay?? It must be in the water, right? Actually there were many studies done that would suggest it was a mental thing.The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest.

---

Never said there wasn't a need, I even just said why there wasn't. Modern science is young, 1970's is thirty years ago, you expect there to be a clear answer now? They didn't even understand DNA, let alone something like that thirty years ago lmao. Mental as in how? Because there's being born with different brain structure, environmental influence on the brain etc. etc. There's also many that suport a gene, it's pretty clear that most agree it's not a choice, it's the many possible ways that why it's the case, that isn't clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggin

Stripes, I see what you are saying, but it is just as likely for a man and a woman to fake a marriage to get the benefits, to say gays are more likely to scam the system is nothing but conjecture, fiction. How many people marry for green cards?

---

I know it happens, but the green card issue isn't always a guarantee on the green card deal. I have a cousin who married a fellow from Mexico after they had a child together. Unfortunately for her and their kid, he was still sent back to Mexico after their marriage.