DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Universe Prince on February 12, 2010, 04:56:31 PM

Title: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Universe Prince on February 12, 2010, 04:56:31 PM
No, that subject line is not a typo.

http://tinyurl.com/yhqowg5 (http://tinyurl.com/yhqowg5)
         The wording of the question proved to make a difference. Seven in 10 respondents said they favor allowing “gay men and lesbians” to serve in the military, including nearly 6 in 10 who said they should be allowed to serve openly. But support was somewhat lower among those who were asked about allowing “homosexuals” to serve, with 59 percent in favor, including 44 percent who support allowing them to serve openly.

Democrats in the poll seemed particularly swayed by the wording. Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Republicans and independents varied less between the two terms.		         
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: BT on February 12, 2010, 05:42:11 PM
It's all in the presentation.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Amianthus on February 12, 2010, 06:27:56 PM
Interesting that Republicans and Independents tended to ignore the difference in wording (when the words really meant the same thing) but for Democrats "a rose is apparently not a rose" - if you change the name, I guess it changes what the name describes for Democrats.

And this also tracks with Democrats being against "civil unions" even if said union includes every benefit of marriage - changing the name changes what the name describes, for them.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: sirs on February 12, 2010, 06:41:17 PM
Good assessment, Ami

Can't help but recall the egregious efforts made that homosexuals were being denied said benefits if they were to "limit" themselves to a civil union.  Here, is one of the few areas that REASONABLE compromise could be made, but too much zealotry, most predominant from the hard core liberal side, clearly produces a scenario that doesn't want any such compromise
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Christians4LessGvt on February 12, 2010, 09:04:29 PM
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p125/dogpoundbrenda/SMILIES/smiley_emoticons_klokotzen.gif)
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 12, 2010, 10:25:06 PM
And this also tracks with Democrats being against "civil unions" even if said union includes every benefit of marriage - changing the name changes what the name describes, for them.

====================================================
And where exactly is it that a civil union includes every benefit, INCLUDING those from private companies and organizations, such as insurance companies and hospitals?
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: BT on February 12, 2010, 10:58:56 PM
Quote
And where exactly is it that a civil union includes every benefit, INCLUDING those from private companies and organizations, such as insurance companies and hospitals?

Where is it that these benefits are mandated for heterosexual couples from private companies. Civil unions could easily include language defining dependents and partner rights.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 12, 2010, 11:49:47 PM
Civil unions could easily include language defining dependents and partner rights.

============================
Perhaps they COULD, but I don't think that this is the case.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: BT on February 12, 2010, 11:54:10 PM
Quote
Perhaps they COULD, but I don't think that this is the case.

and if they did, would that be an acceptable compromise?
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: sirs on February 13, 2010, 01:18:22 AM
Don't hold your breath, Bt
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Plane on February 13, 2010, 07:32:13 AM
  Perhaps thisis a case to prove the value of simbol and nuance as opposed to substance.

   Civil union could be made equal to Marrage or even superior in in some substantial way , but still remain seaprated from holy matrimony. The satisfaction will not be in the improved benefits.

      Social approval, as opposed to opprobrium, is the diffrence.

      Homosexuals do not need either one for any practical reason, unless you consider honor to be practical.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Amianthus on February 13, 2010, 12:29:15 PM
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 12, 2010, 11:49:47 PM
Perhaps they COULD, but I don't think that this is the case.

Really? Which civil union legislation are you looking at?

It would be trivial to include in civil union legislation that a civil union can be regarded as a marriage under all legal agreements.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: sirs on February 15, 2010, 09:06:02 PM
The silence speaks volumes     ;)
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 16, 2010, 01:51:17 PM
It is fine with me if there is a national Civil Union law that is entirely equal to marriage. It is silly to have a situation in a highly mobile nation where people are frequently changing jobs and moving from one state to another, where they can be married in this state, have one sort of civil union in that state and be arrested for sodomy in yet another. Not being gay, this does not matter in any personal way to me, but I am all for justice and equality, and I do not think that such things are best left up to local referenda: it is obvious to me that allowing Steve and Adam to marry does not affect anyone but them and their rights. They can live together as any other married couple almost anywhere in the country, and whether there is a piece of paper somewhere that says they are married or joined in a civil union harms no one in any way and affects no one in any way more than bisexual marriages. If a church chooses not to marry a gay couple, that is there perogative, and I have no problem with including in the law that no clergyman/woman should be forced to marry anyone that he/she does not wish to marry.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: kimba1 on February 16, 2010, 03:02:55 PM
actually civil unions does effects heterosexual people.
a civil unions is not exclusive to gays.
meaning couples with children out of wedlock can for legal or financial reasons get a civil union and avoid the massive baggage a marraige has.

for some reason people publicly won`t except marraige itself is not self-sustainable
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Plane on February 16, 2010, 09:56:54 PM
Marrage is made publicly , and it is a social institution of honor for the union.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: kimba1 on February 17, 2010, 01:32:43 PM
I most likely word wrong.

I meant marraige is easily a very difficult union to maintain that most in joke brought up.

but you do have a point about honor.
if you gotta use honor to maintain a union than marraige is alot more difficult than most can handle.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 17, 2010, 01:47:35 PM
I was unaware that heterosexual couples could have civil unions. I do not see anything problematical with this.

The point I was making is that it is untrue that Adam marrying Steve could affect the marriage of Ted and Alice. Any difficulties would exist only in the minds of Ted, Alice or both of them.

If one wishes to call Ted and Alice's marriage "Holy Wedlock" and Adam and Steve's "Civil Wedlock" I fail to see a problem in that.

Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: kimba1 on February 17, 2010, 02:57:56 PM
if memory serves me right,adam amd steve`s marraige will mean ted and alice`s marraige is downgraded.

it`s not a very well thought arguement,but a popular one.

if anything it should be topics of discussion on who should or should not get married.
ex. pregnant teenage girls.

shouldn`t being married be more difficult ?

divorce is a fairly complicated affair,but marraige is a drunken night in vegas.

the term marraige is sacred just don`t ring true to me

Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 17, 2010, 05:45:45 PM
if memory serves me right,adam amd steve`s marraige will mean ted and alice`s marraige is downgraded.

-------------------------------
I KNOW that is what the anti-gay marriage clowns say, but I cannot see how. The odds are 10,000 to one that Adam and Steve have even seen Ted and Alice's marriage license or vice-versa. Except for legal situations, two people normally would have no difficulty passing themselves off as married when they are not, or vice-versa.

I suppose that a marriage si as sacred as the couple choose to think it is. I really doubt that it would become less sacred if gay people could get married.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: kimba1 on February 17, 2010, 06:52:18 PM
on religious matter catholics until afew decades ago don`t acknowledge any other marraiges .
probly quite afew other christian demonation did the same but they never stopped people from getting married.

so why the more aggressive stance
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 17, 2010, 11:03:37 PM
I think the deal is that the Catholic Church claims to be the only one approved by God, so all the sacraments of other churches are bogus, and not approved by God.

God does not seem to have commented on his opinion of this.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: kimba1 on February 18, 2010, 02:07:29 AM
if we want to go the legal route.
does that mean people married out of the country is not legally married?

it worked for mick jagger
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 18, 2010, 01:12:30 PM
I am not familiar with Jaggar's case, so I do not know about that.

As a rule, a marriage in place X involves the laws of place X.

Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Plane on February 18, 2010, 10:11:18 PM
If someone in Nigeria marries four Women , and then is sent by his job to a temporary home in the USA , do we have to consider him a bigamist? The marrage was leagal where it started.

What if he were to decide to become an American citizen ?  Could his four wives expect to also become citizens and still be recognised as his wives?


This could be a great way to import labor from countrys with leagal pologamy.


http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/four-wives-one-man (http://www.iranian.com/main/singlepage/2008/four-wives-one-man)
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2010, 01:19:47 AM
The US does not recognize polygamous marriages from other countries, nor does the INS accept more than one wife. Nor should it.

Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Plane on February 19, 2010, 09:54:32 AM
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2010, 01:19:47 AM
The US does not recognize polygamous marriages from other countries, nor does the INS accept more than one wife. Nor should it.




What outragious discrimination.

There are probably a dozen women who want to marry Arnold Swartzennegar but that only one may discriminates unfairly al but the one.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2010, 10:27:27 AM
The assumption here is that the government is discriminatory, whereas Arnold is the one who does not wish to have any more wives. If he desired to marry no more than three new wives, he could move to some Muslim country. Or he could become a polygamous Mormon and maybe get away with all 20. Apparently the government does not prosecute polygamists from that cult all that much. The only arrests was in the case of teenage wives too young by law to marry.

You are, in this case, complaining about a problem that does not exist, as Arnold has not express a desire to have a harem.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: sirs on February 19, 2010, 11:12:54 AM
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2010, 10:27:27 AM
The assumption here is that the government is discriminatory, whereas Arnold is the one who does not wish to have any more wives. ...You are, in this case, complaining about a problem that does not exist, as Arnold has not express a desire to have a harem.

And you know this.....how again?  Been to all his family functions have you?  Been privvy to all his intimate conversations with family and close friends?  Wow
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: kimba1 on February 19, 2010, 01:45:34 PM
well
maybe in his youth he might.
he did hang out with bill cosby and jay leno during the hefner years.
but unlike hefner people tend grow out of that phase.
but thiers doubt even hefner is that into his life.
remember it his job to be with blondes .
as you get to be my age you learn nap and a good meal is way more important.
Title: Re: gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals
Post by: Plane on February 20, 2010, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on February 19, 2010, 10:27:27 AM
The assumption here is that the government is discriminatory, whereas Arnold is the one who does not wish to have any more wives. If he desired to marry no more than three new wives, he could move to some Muslim country. Or he could become a polygamous Mormon and maybe get away with all 20. Apparently the government does not prosecute polygamists from that cult all that much. The only arrests was in the case of teenage wives too young by law to marry.

You are, in this case, complaining about a problem that does not exist, as Arnold has not express a desire to have a harem.


Did I say that Aarnold was the one with the problem?

Thousands of women are being denied their right to be the wife of the rich and famous , because we have this silly one each rule.