gays and lesbians more acceptable than homosexuals

[Universe Prince]

No, that subject line is not a typo.

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.

[BT]

It's all in the presentation.

[Amianthus]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Xavier_Onassis]

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?

[BT]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Civil unions could easily include language defining dependents and partner rights.

============================
Perhaps they COULD, but I don't think that this is the case.

[BT]

Perhaps they COULD, but I don't think that this is the case.

and if they did, would that be an acceptable compromise?

[sirs]

Don't hold your breath, Bt

[Plane]

  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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[sirs]

The silence speaks volumes     

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[kimba1]

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