Just wondering, with future elections what issues do you think are really important?

[AnaheimGirl]

I don't care what they do in their own home. It's none of my business. But don't ask me to endorse gay marriage with my vote!

I wouldn't ask someone to vote for same-sex marriage if they felt that vote violated their beliefs. I would however, ask them to abstain from voting on the issue if it came to that. I would hope that people who realize that someone else's marriage is none of their business, wouldn't vote against it based on their own personal beliefs. That would be a little hypocritical, wouldn't it?

 

[WIcruizer]

In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

That poll question is completely different than:

...and the majority of Americans are now opposed to the war in Iraq. By the logic you wish applied to deciding about gay marriage, doesn't that mean we should be pulling out of Iraq immediately?

Secondly, Gallup's polling is unreliable. They have been way off the past two Presidential elections. Even so, within the margin of error, it's prety close to 50/50.

I trust my own informal polling as much as Gallop. I talk to people all over the country, with all types of political views. The consensus I hear is this. Most people wonder if it was worth it, not comfortable with how it's going but wanto to stay and get the job done. I also don't sense this intense hatred of President Bush, other than the far 20% or so of true liberals. Middle of the road Americans still like Bush. I do sense impatience, but not this hatred I see from some in here and other places.

 

[bsnyder]

No problem; here's the data from the most recent gallup poll:
Asking the question;
"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?" Form A (N=491, MoE ± 5)

11/11-13/05
Made a mistake 54%
Did Not Make a Mistake 45%
Unsure 1%

"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"
38% yes
60% no
unsure 2%

Check out the complete current poll and how it measures to previous polling on the same question at
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

There's the data to back up my post. Two points I need to make here; one, I never said that people overwhelmingly want us to withdraw immediately. I respect both of you gentlemen (jimmiej & bsnyder) enough to not put words in my mouth. This brings me to my second point (and the point I was trying to make in the first place) concerning comments made by posters around gay marriage; we don't always do what the majority of the people want. If we did, based on current sentiment in this country, we wouldn't be in Iraq or we would be planning to withdraw based on the whim of the American people. Don't read more into it than that.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I guess I just didn't read all the posts carefully enough. I thought the issue was whether a majority think we should withdraw immediately. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[sodaseller]

More importantly, I don't care if I'm in the minority or majority on an issue. I'm not Bill Clinton, making every calculated decision based on polls.

Way to work in that talking point!

 

[jimmiej]

I wouldn't ask someone to vote for same-sex marriage if they felt that vote violated their beliefs. I would however, ask them to abstain from voting on the issue if it came to that. I would hope that people who realize that someone else's marriage is none of their business, wouldn't vote against it based on their own personal beliefs. That would be a little hypocritical, wouldn't it?

IMO, abstaining is the same as voting affirmative. Someone else's marriage may be none of my business, but the society we live in IS. I feel society is best served by marriage being ONLY between a man & a woman. Besides being personally against gay marriage, I see no societal benefits coming from it.

Mugg Man, thank you for the link. Re: majority wishes concerning gay marriage & the war, I think we're comparing apples & oranges. One, gay marriage, has been left up to the voters DIRECTLY (in many cases, i.e. the 2004 state elections) and rightfully so, IMO. The other, our involvement in the Iraq war, is being decided by our elected officials. Regardless of how the majority feels, they have the final say. We get to express our opinion, via the vote, AFTER the fact.

 

[sodaseller]

I don't care what they do in their own home. It's none of my business. But don't ask me to endorse gay marriage with my vote!

Pace Martin Niemoller, don't be surprised if your fellow citizens don't want to respect your rights and the dignity of self determination if you won't respect theirs

 

[AnaheimGirl]

Besides being personally against gay marriage, I see no societal benefits coming from it.

Here's a societal benefit: As it is now, children in families with same-sex parents generally have only one legal parent. When the legal parent is the SAHP, the children aren't generally eligible for health insurance from the working parent's employer (yes, some companies provide this benefit, but they aren't required to). If same-sex marriage was allowed, these kids would be eligible for health insurance on the step-parent's plan. Ditto for social security survivor's benefits that would become available should that working parent die.

There are already a lot of kids in this country who are living with two same-sex parents. Legalizing their parents' relationship would provide those kids with more stability and financial security. I see that as a benefit to society. I can give you more, but I'm tired and need to get to bed, so maybe tomorrow, if I get the chance.

 

[WatchinCaptKangaroo]

1) Education. There is no reason that we are so far behind. We are setting up this country for a take-over in 50 years when we have people who think fo schizzle is a real word running the country. NCLB is a joke. We are failing our children, our future. Something must be done.

2) Welfare reform. Welfare should be there when people need it. Food stamps, rent assistance, job training, child care and transportation stipends should all be available while people who are accepting it are givin the tools they need to be self sufficient. The system that enables and allows people to remain on it for life must end.

3) Child Protection. Let parents be parents, raise and discipline their kids as they see fit. We are letting our children down by allowing them to call 911 and have the police show up and tell mom & dad that they can't make 8 y/o junior sit in time out for an hour because he hit the dog. On the flip side we need to protect the kids in care and those in abusive homes.

4) Gay rights. I don't care that two consenting adults who love each other happen to be female or male. Seprate laws are not equal. I think we covered that whole seperate but equal argument back in the 60s.

5) Right to choose. I don't care what you do with your body but don't tell me what to do with mine.

 

[WIcruizer]

Way to work in that talking point!

Thank you. Way to avoid being caught in a contradiction.

 

[jimmiej]

Here's a societal benefit: As it is now, children in families with same-sex parents generally have only one legal parent. When the legal parent is the SAHP, the children aren't generally eligible for health insurance from the working parent's employer (yes, some companies provide this benefit, but they aren't required to). If same-sex marriage was allowed, these kids would be eligible for health insurance on the step-parent's plan. Ditto for social security survivor's benefits that would become available should that working parent die.

There are already a lot of kids in this country who are living with two same-sex parents. Legalizing their parents' relationship would provide those kids with more stability and financial security. I see that as a benefit to society. I can give you more, but I'm tired and need to get to bed, so maybe tomorrow, if I get the chance.

So you want a business to pay health benefits for children that don't even belong to the employee? I don't think so. You do realize employers will pass this cost along to you & me. The legal parent has the obligation to provide insurance coverage for their children.

 

[AnaheimGirl]

So you want a business to pay health benefits for children that don't even belong to the employee? I don't think so. You do realize employers will pass this cost along to you & me. The legal parent has the obligation to provide insurance coverage for their children.

Well, if you look at it that way, then do you also feel that businesses shouldn't cover step-children of heterosexuals?

The only reason (generally) that there is only one legal parent in a same-sex family is that our society does not allow gays and lesbians to form families with two legal parents, the way heterosexuals can so easily, biology or not.

For example, two women in a relationship decide to have children together. It's decided that the one with the lower paying job gets artificially inseminated, because the family will be financially more stable if she is the one who quits working to stay home with the kids. She ends up the legal parent, because it's her egg, her body, etc. The other parent has no legal standing whatsoever, although that is not their intent. In every respect other than legally, that child has two parents, just as if he/she was born to a heterosexual couple via the use of donor sperm.

Sure, a legal parent has the responsibility to provide for their child. But when someone wants to become a legal parent to a child, wants to provide for that child, but is unable to, simply because of his/her sex, IMO, there is something terribly wrong.

Oh, and WRT to the cost, I don't mind it being passed along to me any more than I mind the cost of benefits for any employee's children being passed along to me.

 

[cardaway]

Well, if you look at it that way, then do you also feel that businesses shouldn't cover step-children of heterosexuals?

Excellent point.

 

[cardaway]

This is a perfect example of something that shouldn't be left up to the states.

As long as the governments are involved with the marriage, or giving different benefits to married couples, they are in the wrong.

As others have pointed out, the solution is simple. Get government out of it. Create civil unions that everybody apply to everybody. Marriages by the church would be optional and civil unions would still be required.

 

[Chicago526]

So you want a business to pay health benefits for children that don't even belong to the employee?

Why do you say the child wouldn't belong to the employee? Just because they aren't biologicaly related, does make them anly less parent and child.

So adopted kids shouldn't get benifits either? After all, it's not "their" child.

Other than "you don't like it" what are your reasons for not wanting it legal? You said you see no benifits from legalizing it. But I think your question should be "what harm would come of it" rather than "what do we gain?"

And the argument of "well then a man can have 4 wives and dogs can marry cats" doesn't fly either. The argument is who can get married, not how many spouses you can have. And if a cat and dog are able to go down to city hall, fill out the marrige aplication, and pay the fee, then sure, let 'em get hitched!

 

[scubamouse]

So you want a business to pay health benefits for children that don't even belong to the employee? I don't think so. You do realize employers will pass this cost along to you & me. The legal parent has the obligation to provide insurance coverage for their children.

ding ding ding!!!

and thus we have the REAL reason people are against gay marriage (and adoption)

my DS is adopted, does he belong to me? and i have the same question about step-kids that others do.

FTR in some states the non-bio parent can adopt a child being raised w/their partner and secure legal/medical benefits. but that's mostly a blue state thing.

 

[cardaway]

FTR in some states the non-bio parent can adopt a child being raised w/their partner and secure legal/medical benefits. but that's mostly a blue state thing.

It's amazing how many here supposedly support Disney who all but treats gays as equals, including treating gay couples like any other married couple, but are actually against everything they have put they believe as a company.

 

[WIcruizer]

It's amazing how many here supposedly support Disney who all but treats gays as equals, including treating gay couples like any other married couple, but are actually against everything they have put they believe as a company

Why is that amazing? I support my own company, but don't agre with all the policies. I support the Green Bay Packers, but don't agree with everything they've done. Are you saying if we support Disney, we're supposed to agree with everything they do?

 

[cardaway]

Why is that amazing? I support my own company, but don't agre with all the policies. I support the Green Bay Packers, but don't agree with everything they've done. Are you saying if we support Disney, we're supposed to agree with everything they do?

The feelings on this issue are typically much more intense than what they have with other issues. Yes, I'm really surprised having read some of the posts on the issue that the people would have anything to do with Disney. Again, only because of their posts.

 

[Mugg Mann]

That poll question is completely different than:
"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

That poll question is completely different than

Quote:
"...and the majority of Americans are now opposed to the war in Iraq. By the logic you wish applied to deciding about gay marriage, doesn't that mean we should be pulling out of Iraq immediately?"

Secondly, Gallup's polling is unreliable. They have been way off the past two Presidential elections. Even so, within the margin of error, it's prety close to 50/50.

I trust my own informal polling as much as Gallop. I talk to people all over the country, with all types of political views. The consensus I hear is this. Most people wonder if it was worth it, not comfortable with how it's going but wanto to stay and get the job done. I also don't sense this intense hatred of President Bush, other than the far 20% or so of true liberals. Middle of the road Americans still like Bush. I do sense impatience, but not this hatred I see from some in here and other places.

This is a very revealing post of yours. Had you actually opened the link provided (which you clearly didn't based on your response), you would have found numerous polls from all sorts of sources. Many questions were worded differently, but polling shows an overwhelming consensus of Americans disapproving of the war, and of Bush's performance. Even Fox news' polling showed that the majority thinks that five years from now the Iraq war won't have been worth it. Instead of doing research in order to determine facts, you instead chose to simply dismiss one particular poll, because in your opinion, you find it unreliable.

This is the second time in the last few days (the first being your inability to put the Herman Goebbels quote from sixty years ago in another thread into the proper modern context despite several explanations about the parallels for you from different posters) that you have, based on your posts, demonstrated an inability to fully comprehend nuance. When this is coupled with your above declaration that you prefer your own impressions to facts that contradict those impressions, it greatly explains your unwavering support of president Bush since he also demonstrates those particular character traits on an ongoing basis.

 

[jimmiej]

my DS is adopted, does he belong to me? and i have the same question about step-kids that others do.

Adoption is a whole different issue. When you adopt, that child is viewed by the government as YOUR child just as if you gave birth to them.