Simple poll: Are you in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage?
That is, giving it the full rights and status as hetero-sex marriage? I am wondering if there is a difference in opinion between atheist/agnostic Democrats and believer Democrats. I would expect close to 100% yes vote in this group.
Similarly, I wonder if there is a difference here between atheist/agnostic Republicans (not many of those I bet) and believer Republicans.
I am also curious what the stats would be between atheists vs believers in general.
|15 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited|
|yes, same-sex marriages should be fully recognized by the state/feds with all rights thereto|
|no, same-sex unions should not have the same status as hetero-sex unions|
|0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.|
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
etc.) number of partners and/or gender should not matter. So, I guess I vote yes, but with an asterisk.
I fully expect a lot of "marriages" in the future will consist of more then two partners, for pragmatic reasons rather than love. I don't believe there will be enough jobs in the future to support two-partner families, and jobs will be too fluid and low-paying for two-parent families to survive. I'm glad to see you included number of partners in your list.
I am amazed how many people are threatened by this one. In America lots of people get riled up over this one. As long as it is consensual, I don't care if 3 men or 3 women want to get married. I don't care if 5 men and 5 women get married to each other. Let people find happiness however they see fit as long as it is consensual. Really, it's nobody else's business but their own.
Ask and you shall receive. Sometimes. It depends upon who you're asking, and what you are asking.
Poll was from 2013, so I would imagine the number is growing even more.
What I found interesting from those numbers:
Democrats as a whole group 70-28 for/against
Republicans as a whole group 30-66 for/against
What a vast difference between the two groups.
Of course, religion has NOTHING AT ALL to do with this, does it???
..... what I really would like to see is the government get out of the marriage business altogether. The government should only issue Domestic Partnerships....to any consenting adult couple of any race or gender. Then through that, and only that, will their children and their property matters be legal.
After that you may get married in a church, temple, mosque, Denny's....anywhere and any way you want because the actual marriage has nothing to do with the legality of your joint property, children....all that stuff.
So one can just get the Domestic Partnership and be all legal and recognized. ....and can stop there, or
one can get married too if that is important to you.
But JUST getting married will not be recognized by the government.
Why is that so hard to figure out and do?
is that you want to separate the church rite from the legal contract. Interesting tack. This takes the argument about what "marriage" is away from the churches and religious people who are so upset about same sex "marriage".
A gay couple that I know have two different attitudes about the controversy. One says that he doesn't care if they call it a marriage or a domestic partnership, as long as he has all the same rights as a married couple. The other says that he is opposed to separating the terminology because he wants to be treated as equal to any other couple, and that includes calling the commitment by the same name. I see both sides. If marriage was only a rite performed in the church, and all couples have a domestic partnership unless they are religious and want the rite, that takes care of the problem.
It is both.
There is no reason to not separate the two...since religion is not the government anymore..... that's the "why" to get out of it now. (Y'know, religions are just ancient government)
"Separate the legalization of the marriage from the religious service that celebrates it. "
Uh.... that's exactly what I proposed.
Since the religious folks are the one clutching their pearls about what a "marriage" is.... let them have the term "marriage" and the government/legal part can be called the non-religious term "domestic partnership"... since that's what it is legally.
...there separate lines for believers and non-believers to vote on?
I have two friends who got married last summer in Arkansas but their marriage isn't recognized in Tennessee, which is where they live at the moment. My best friend of 25+ years is gay and I'd love for him to be able to get married and have it recognized by the state, assuming he hasn't given up on finding a good man by now, that is.
So, really, when it comes down to restrictions of freedom to marry whomever one chooses, it's always ah ancient religion that steps in the way.
Really, that's all there is that stops or clogs up equal rights, some archaic mythology or religion.
And the dominoes are falling there faster than I thought would happen.
I like the idea of partnerships as well. I knew two straight women who were suddenly single. They wanted to form a domestic partnership for tax and expense reasons, without the implied sexual baggage of marriage.
That would be an interesting option for a lot of people once they wrapped their minds around it.
Are gays in this country American citizens, like myself?
If so, they have the same rights that I do, period. Including the right to leave property to their loved ones when they die...which doesn't necessarily mean their gay-hating relatives in East Jesus, Mississippi who unfortunately outlived them.
I used to work with a couple of atheist Republicans. They felt the same way - who marries who is no damn business of the State. They believed the same way about abortion, and generally hated the Religious Right. Which they mostly considered a giant festering boil on the fat white ass of the Republican party.
We argued a lot more about stuff like the Michael Newdow "Pledge" lawsuit than we ever did about gay rights or abortion. As we often read right here on DU, they considered such lawsuits frivolous and a waste of resources.
These Republicans lived in California, so maybe that makes a difference.
e.g., arch-conservative Ray Hoiles was the founder/publisher of the Orange County Register, the biggest right-wing newspaper in California for many years.
At the height of the Vietnam War, Hoiles horrified his fellow rightists by coming out against the military draft, which he called "slavery." He also wanted all drug laws eliminated, because the State has no business telling citizens which drugs they can use.
OFF-TOPIC, the Second Nativity!!! Today is Elvis Presley's birthday, and Turner Classic Movies is showing his movies all day long.
Still being jet-lagged, I got up at 5:00 AM this morning and tuned in. Currently watching "It Happened At The World's Fair." With a 10-year-old Kurt Russell in a bit part. And a cute little Asian girl, Vicky Tiu, who grew up to be the First Lady of Hawaii.
Yeah, I know, stupid waste of time. But my mother was (and is) a big Elvis fan, so these movies are part of my childhood. Like measles and whooping cough...
You presided over the wedding, right? Thanks for being another open-minded American.
Except for a few assholes, spammers, and lurking tea baggers.
I would be more interested in a general poll of the US. I also suspect that we'd find similar ratios among the young adults and youth.