| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Aug 5 2011, 2:20 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
 |
|
"The PPP poll surveyed 480 voters in mid-July, who were asked "do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?" 47% answered "legal," 42% said "illegal," and 11% said they weren't sure.
When phrased in a different way, the gap between supporters of same-sex marriage and opponents was smaller, though the majority still came out in favor of it. "Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage," the poll asked. "Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?"
In this case, 41% said "gay couples should be allowed to legally marry," 40% said "gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry," 17% said "there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship," and 2% said they weren't sure. "
Far from a majority of supporters for Gay Marriage. I thought that NJ recognizes same sex civil unions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 5 2011, 8:06 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
People make this issue too complicated. There are church marriages and there is the State's role in marriage which not only includes officially "permitting" it but the dozens of ways the laws give legal advantage and status to marriage people from taxes to shared property rights to legal protection from recrimination to parental rights to health benefits.
Churches should be able to do whatever they want in regards to gay marriage consistent with their own principles. But the state has no business discriminating. It should either get out of the marriage business, which it doesn't need to be in and historically wasn't, and stop giving legal privileges and advantages to married people, or it should let gays enjoy all the status and advantages of legal marriage. I have no issue with people who feel like gay marriage is against their religion, even if I don't agree, but when they feel like they should enjoy state-sanctioned benefits from something they argue is religious in basis, they can no longer base their argument on religion. Civil unions are not adequate in solving the State-sanctioned side of this because they still create a discriminatory lesser status and enjoy some but not all of the same level of protections in some cases. Again, if you want to protect the word marriage, then change ALL state-involvement to "civil union" for any couple, gay or heterosexual. Someone can still be declared "married" by their church while state's acknowledge "civil unions."
The arguments that marriage has "always been" between a man and woman or that the state has always acknowledged it as such are both wrong. There have been gay marriages going back to ancient cultures and in fact most ancient cultures were more tolerant of them, and the state did not historically play a formal role in marriage until relatively recently in history, and only when they started using it to extract taxes or confer special benefits and rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
publius
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 5 2011, 10:48 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
I'm all for gay marriage!
Why shouldn't gays be miserable too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Aug 5 2011, 11:18 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| The article states that the "majority" of those polled support gay marriage. Regardless of your view on the issue, 41% does not constitute a majority. My guess is the other 10% are still in the closet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 6 2011, 7:29 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| What if I want to marry my sister? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 6 2011, 9:31 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | The article states that the "majority" of those polled support gay marriage. Regardless of your view on the issue, 41% does not constitute a majority. My guess is the other 10% are still in the closet. |
Where does the article or headline say majority? They say plurality. Do you know what that means? It means the largest percentage. Not the same thing as a majority. Elections for example are won by plurality for example, not simple majority. Usually if there are more than two choices the largest response is a plurality not a majority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 6 2011, 10:00 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | What if I want to marry my sister? |
The state outlawing you marrying your sister is not legal discrimination because "sisters" are not a recognized class or group in our society. Someone can be a sister but "sisters" are not a class. Race, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, people with disabilities are recognized classes that are entitled to protection against discrimination.
The better and more common example is the State outlawing polygamist marriage. Putting aside marriages to minors which where the State's obligation to protect the welfare of them minor supersedes protection of religious freedom (and our Constitution is clear that your individual rights end when they trample on another's), preventing plural marriage between 3 or more consenting adults for religious reasons could arguably classified as discrimination on the basis of their religion.
However, the state has defined marriage as between two people. Since a third person is not a legal "class or group" it can't be discriminated against. What becomes discrimination is saying marriage is between two people but not certain kinds of people. It is not discrimination to say marriage is between 2 people versus 3 or 5 or 10. Again, this applies to the state's role in the institution. Whether the state has the right to prevent plural marriage recognition by a religion, with none of the benefits or distinctions of the legal status is an entirely different matter.
From a legal and constitutional basis this whole problem is really the result of people using the state legal status of marriage to effectively become a club with special benefits conferred by the state. If people had left marriage a strictly religious institution we would have no problem here. A given religion can define what it constitutes as marriage and if two or more people want to be married they can shop for a religion that acknowledges their preferences or simply live together and consider themselves married (as many, many heterosexual couples did throughout history and in the early days of this country before there was state advantage to it and when religious recognition was not always practical, or at least had to be deferred often for years past having kids, etc.). Instead, we have created all kinds of state-sanctioned benefits to marriage from tax advantages to legal protections. Once we did this, we created a basis for discrimination and an issue of separation of church and state if we were going to narrowly define the benefits the state was rewarding only only the basis of certain religion's definition of marriage.
There are three ways out of this. Stop conferring the state benefits to the institution or don't discriminate. Or, three, rip up the constitution and throw a couple of the core values our country was built on out the window. I prefer one of the first two. As a married person who enjoys the state-sanctioned benefits, I most prefer the second, stopping discrimination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Aug 6 2011, 11:30 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | The article states that the "majority" of those polled support gay marriage. Regardless of your view on the issue, 41% does not constitute a majority. My guess is the other 10% are still in the closet. |
Where does the article or headline say majority? They say plurality. Do you know what that means? It means the largest percentage. Not the same thing as a majority. Elections for example are won by plurality for example, not simple majority. Usually if there are more than two choices the largest response is a plurality not a majority. |
I guess you decided to be an obnoxious ignorant jerk BEFORE you read past the headline. Read paragraph 3, Moron! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 9:12 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | The article states that the "majority" of those polled support gay marriage. Regardless of your view on the issue, 41% does not constitute a majority. My guess is the other 10% are still in the closet. |
Where does the article or headline say majority? They say plurality. Do you know what that means? It means the largest percentage. Not the same thing as a majority. Elections for example are won by plurality for example, not simple majority. Usually if there are more than two choices the largest response is a plurality not a majority. |
I guess you decided to be an obnoxious ignorant jerk BEFORE you read past the headline. Read paragraph 3, Moron! |
I'm not the previous poster but you seem to be splitting hairs. They used the word loosely not deceptively. They had already said plurality in the headline and the text and use the word in the context of saying an even smaller percent than that plurality. No one would read that and think they meant a real majority unless they were looking for a fight. But to each their own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 10:57 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | The article states that the "majority" of those polled support gay marriage. Regardless of your view on the issue, 41% does not constitute a majority. My guess is the other 10% are still in the closet. |
Where does the article or headline say majority? They say plurality. Do you know what that means? It means the largest percentage. Not the same thing as a majority. Elections for example are won by plurality for example, not simple majority. Usually if there are more than two choices the largest response is a plurality not a majority. |
I guess you decided to be an obnoxious ignorant jerk BEFORE you read past the headline. Read paragraph 3, Moron! |
I'm not the previous poster but you seem to be splitting hairs. They used the word loosely not deceptively. They had already said plurality in the headline and the text and use the word in the context of saying an even smaller percent than that plurality. No one would read that and think they meant a real majority unless they were looking for a fight. But to each their own. |
So what you're saying is, even though I am correct that the article says "majority", that is not what they meant, and therefore it is OK for some self righteous jackass to give me a lecture on the meaning of "plurality". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 11:20 am EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | What if I want to marry my sister? |
The state outlawing you marrying your sister is not legal discrimination because "sisters" are not a recognized class or group in our society. Someone can be a sister but "sisters" are not a class. Race, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, people with disabilities are recognized classes that are entitled to protection against discrimination.
The better and more common example is the State outlawing polygamist marriage. Putting aside marriages to minors which where the State's obligation to protect the welfare of them minor supersedes protection of religious freedom (and our Constitution is clear that your individual rights end when they trample on another's), preventing plural marriage between 3 or more consenting adults for religious reasons could arguably classified as discrimination on the basis of their religion.
However, the state has defined marriage as between two people. Since a third person is not a legal "class or group" it can't be discriminated against. What becomes discrimination is saying marriage is between two people but not certain kinds of people. It is not discrimination to say marriage is between 2 people versus 3 or 5 or 10. Again, this applies to the state's role in the institution. Whether the state has the right to prevent plural marriage recognition by a religion, with none of the benefits or distinctions of the legal status is an entirely different matter.
From a legal and constitutional basis this whole problem is really the result of people using the state legal status of marriage to effectively become a club with special benefits conferred by the state. If people had left marriage a strictly religious institution we would have no problem here. A given religion can define what it constitutes as marriage and if two or more people want to be married they can shop for a religion that acknowledges their preferences or simply live together and consider themselves married (as many, many heterosexual couples did throughout history and in the early days of this country before there was state advantage to it and when religious recognition was not always practical, or at least had to be deferred often for years past having kids, etc.). Instead, we have created all kinds of state-sanctioned benefits to marriage from tax advantages to legal protections. Once we did this, we created a basis for discrimination and an issue of separation of church and state if we were going to narrowly define the benefits the state was rewarding only only the basis of certain religion's definition of marriage.
There are three ways out of this. Stop conferring the state benefits to the institution or don't discriminate. Or, three, rip up the constitution and throw a couple of the core values our country was built on out the window. I prefer one of the first two. As a married person who enjoys the state-sanctioned benefits, I most prefer the second, stopping discrimination. |
Thanks for your explanation, but I'm not looking for a better and more common example. My question is why can't I marry my sister? or Mother? Or Father? Or any other consenting adult. If marriage in the eyes of the government is not about sex or procreation and simply a contract between two consenting adults who love each other and want to enter a contract whereby they can access certain rights and privileges... why can't I marry my sister? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 12:47 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 12:49 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 1:11 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim. |
you're boring |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Aug 7 2011, 5:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Plurality Of New Jersey Voters Thinks Gay Marriage Should Be Legal |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Your question was already answered in the novel-length reply so why re-ask? |
Because he thinks he is being provacative, instead of merely dim. |
Actually, the question I asked wasn't answered. I did hope the question would be provocative, as in "thought provoking". If you argue that any two consenting adults in a loving committed relationship should be allowed to marry, what would preclude me from marrying my sister? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
