Why does gay marriage keep losing?

In the United States, gay marriage has now been put to a popular vote in 31 states, all in the last few years. It's record?

0-31.

That's right.

0-31.

Chew on that for a moment.

0-31.

Yes, some of those states have been the Mississippis and Arkansas of the World. But other have been Ohio, California, Michigan and now Maine, all Obama states.

Why?

Well, there are many theories; but here's mine: It's the rhetoric, stupid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091104/ap_on_an/us_gay_marriage_analysis

"Today's heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Yes, this is just one example. But anyone following the debate in the US knows that what I'm about to say is true: The rhetoric out of the pro-same sex marriage camp is generally about how their opponents are ignorant bigots or hatemongers or fearmongers or whatever. If you don't believe me, Google "proposition 8."

In every other type of election, the losing side will say something like "Congratulations to the other side. the people have spoken. We have to redouble our efforts to get out our message blah blah blah." When gay marriage loses an election, its proponents say, "You're a bunch of ignorant hatemongers."

Folks, let me tell you something about voters: They don't like being called gullible bigots. The majority of people were obviously at one point against same sex marriage. Ergo, to win, you need to change people's minds. The way to change people's minds is not to call them ignorant bigots. The way to change people's minds is to calmly convince them why you are right.

time for some introspection on the part of the gay marriage movement, IMHO. They might win eventually anyway; but it will happen faster if they take my advice. Book it.

Originally posted by sh76
In the United States, gay marriage has now been put to a popular vote in 31 states, all in the last few years. It's record?

0-31.

That's right.

0-31.

Chew on that for a moment.

0-31.

Yes, some of those states have been the Mississippis and Arkansas of the World. But other have been Ohio, California, Michigan and now Maine, all Obama states.
...[text shortened]... ventually anyway; but it will happen faster if they take my advice. Book it.

are you in favor of gay marriage?

Originally posted by sh76
In the United States, gay marriage has now been put to a popular vote in 31 states, all in the last few years. It's record?

0-31.

That's right.

0-31.

Chew on that for a moment.

0-31.

Yes, some of those states have been the Mississippis and Arkansas of the World. But other have been Ohio, California, Michigan and now Maine, all Obama states.

ventually anyway; but it will happen faster if they take my advice. Book it.

why back down from the truth? people who vote against gay marriage ARE ignorant biggots! Why hide from the truth?

If you asked a State today to vote on whether or not women should be allowed to vote and the majority of that state voted NO, are you suggesting the rest of us should sit back and calmly take it?

Of course not, the people that voted no need to be stigmatized and called out for who they are; A bunch of ignorant bigots that need to get out of the dark ages.

It was only by exposing the ridiculousness and outdated nonsense beliefs held by the general public that we were able to push forward womens's rights, civil rights, racial equality etc.

You are only fighting about the definition of a word anyway. "Marriage"..."Civil Union"....it's all meaningless if you really think about it. It means the same damn thing at the end of the day.

I love it when the majority of people think they can dicate what rights to give to the minority of people.

Fight the power.

i thought the various anti- amendments have had quite active and coordinated support from the anti-gay-marriage advocates. at least in california. church groups, etc.

racial minorities have rights today because the rights were imposed and enforced from the top.

Originally posted by generalissimo
are you in favor of gay marriage?

I don't know. It's a tough issue.

On the one hand, why not let homosexual people who love each other have the same status as similarly situated heterosexual people?

On the other hand, marriage has always been defined as a heterosexual union and marriage has always been a contract recognized by law because it helps to ensure stable families. I understand that not every heterosexual marriage produces children, but the basic idea behind it is to generate a stable family. I don't really wee why that needs to change now rather than just calling it a union. I can also see why people don't want same sex marriages and lifestyles thrusted into their children's faces.

Deep inside though, my guess is that same sex marriage is coming. In 50 years from now it might be as routine as heterosexual marriage. And the Earth will still be rotating... Just not that big a deal as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe government should just get out of the marriage business all together and let people call themselves whatever they like.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't know. It's a tough issue.

On the one hand, why not let homosexual people who love each other have the same status as similarly situated heterosexual people?

On the other hand, marriage has always been defined as a heterosexual union and marriage has always been a contract recognized by law because it helps to ensure stable families. I understand t t of the marriage business all together and let people call themselves whatever they like.

Again, you are arguing about word definitions

Insane.

Scene 1

Hetro couple : "we're married"

Gay couple: "nice, we are in a civil union"

Hetro Couple: "nice, have a nice day"

-------------------------------------------------------

Scene 2:

Hetro couple: "we're married"

Gay coupple: "we're married too"

Hetro couple: "what? this is terrible! this is horrible...an abomination! Death to you both!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------

🙄

😕

Originally posted by sh76
I don't know. It's a tough issue.

On the one hand, why not let homosexual people who love each other have the same status as similarly situated heterosexual people?

On the other hand, marriage has always been defined as a heterosexual union and marriage has always been a contract recognized by law because it helps to ensure stable families. I understand t ...[text shortened]... t of the marriage business all together and let people call themselves whatever they like.

there's no law against unstable marriages.

Originally posted by sh76
I don't know. It's a tough issue.

On the one hand, why not let homosexual people who love each other have the same status as similarly situated heterosexual people?

On the other hand, marriage has always been defined as a heterosexual union and marriage has always been a contract recognized by law because it helps to ensure stable families. I understand t ...[text shortened]... t of the marriage business all together and let people call themselves whatever they like.

I see, you're unsure but you still go along with it because you feel it will happen sooner or later.

I don't hate gays, and Im not a bigot, but I think this thing about gay marriage being a struggle for civil rights just as much as it was for blacks is simply out of proportion. Changing the whole definition of marriage in order to suit a minority of people with unnatural sexual practises seems to be very selfish to me.
Without mentioning of course that this is likely to be a slippery slope.
If the people reject the idea then so be it, after all, whats the point of democracy if you're going to ignore the results.

Originally posted by uzless
Again, you are arguing about word definitions

Insane.

This whole debate is about word definitions.

What else is it about?

Originally posted by uzless

I love it when the majority of people think they can dicate what rights to give to the minority of people.

Fight the power.

What was the voter turnout, I wonder?

Arguments from the purpose of marriage are nauseating.

Originally posted by uzless
Scene 1

Hetro couple : "we're married"

Gay couple: "nice, we are in a civil union"

Hetro Couple: "nice, have a nice day"

-------------------------------------------------------

Scene 2:

Hetro couple: "we're married"

Gay coupple: "we're married too"

Hetro couple: "what? this is terrible! this is horrible...an abomination! Death ...[text shortened]... you both!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------

🙄

😕

Scene 1

Gay couple: "We want the same rights as the heterosexual couple down the street."

Bureaucrat: "No problem; just fill out this domestic partnership application and you'll get all the same rights as that other couple. We'll mail you a domestic partnership certificate. Look for it in 7-10 business days."

Gay Couple: "Great; thanks. Have a nice day."

-------------------------------------------------------

Scene 2:


Gay couple: "We want the same rights as the heterosexual couple down the street."

Bureaucrat: "No problem; just fill out this domestic partnership application and you'll get all the same rights as that other couple. We'll mail you a domestic partnership certificate. Look for it in 7-10 business days."

Gay Couple: "What!!?? No! We don't want just the rights; we want the specific word "marriage" to appear on our certificate."

Bureaucrat: "Well, sorry; I can give you the same rights. But the certificate has to use the word 'partnership' not 'marriage'" Is that okay?

Gay Couple: "No! You're a hatemonger and a bigot!"


-------------------------------------------------------

🙄

Originally posted by sh76
I don't know. It's a tough issue.

On the one hand, why not let homosexual people who love each other have the same status as similarly situated heterosexual people?

On the other hand, marriage has always been defined as a heterosexual union and marriage has always been a contract recognized by law because it helps to ensure stable families. I understand t t of the marriage business all together and let people call themselves whatever they like.

If your biggest concern is that marriage has been defined as being between men and women (it would be an enormous stretch or at historically short-sighted to sat "between one man and one women" ) with the purpose for producing stable families, then I don't see why their is an issue.

Putting aside my objection to claiming that marriage been defined throughout history (it has changed over time and across locations), there are two reasons why I think the stable families argument goes nowhere.

First, you already admit allowances for heterosexual couples to marry who either cannot produce offspring. The young infertile and the elderly can marry just as easily as anyone else. There's really no serious standards to qualify for marriage that would check for likelihood of stability. There's no means testing. Felons (even child molestors) can marry. So can alcoholics and drug addicts. There's nothing about any of these things that would suggest a stable family. If you don't a fundamental wrong in two members of the same sex being together, then why not make an allowance for them too?

Second, gay couples can produce stable families. They cannot procreate together. But in general either partner can use their genetic material to create and the rear a child. Further, they can adopt thereby producing a family where one was not before and simultaneously providing an excellent social service by giving unwanted kids homes.

Take away the "stable families" cause and your just left with let's not change it because it's been that way in the past. I don't think that's a very compelling argument and I don't think some one with your intelligence should either.

Originally posted by sh76
Scene 1

Gay couple: "We want the same rights as the heterosexual couple down the street."

Bureaucrat: "No problem; just fill out this domestic partnership application and you'll get all the same rights as that other couple. We'll mail you a domestic partnership certificate. Look for it in 7-10 business days."

Gay Couple: "Great; thanks. Have a nice d ...[text shortened]... "


-------------------------------------------------------

🙄

Didn't you and no1 already talk about this? It was my understanding that the government could not discriminate against individuals unless it could show a compelling state interest for doing so. It seems that an "everything but marriage" bill paints them into a corner in terms of showing a compelling state interest.

Originally posted by sh76
Scene 2:


Gay couple: "We want the same rights as the heterosexual couple down the street."

Bureaucrat: "No problem; just fill out this domestic partnership application and you'll get all the same rights as that other couple. We'll mail you a domestic partnership certificate. Look for it in 7-10 business days."

Gay Couple: "What!!?? No! We don't wan ...[text shortened]... a bigot!"


-------------------------------------------------------

🙄

Aaaah yes, the different but equal argument.

Hey, the same water comes out of both water fountains, why can't we have black people use different ones and have white people have their own? Hey.. it's the same water right? It's equal, but different.

I don't really have a problem if the government also stops using the term marriage for heterosexual couples too - then it's up to individuals what to call their unions.

It's not equality unless it's completely equal - in terminology also.

Also, do they have unions with all the same rights in Maine already?