Poll: Most Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
Jimmy, let me correct you. IT IS the job of judges to interpret the Constitution. That's the entire function of the Supreme Court. The federal court system (districts, appeals, etc.) was created by Congress which was given the power to do so in the Constitution. Federal District court judges are charged with interpreting federal laws and the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the ultimate place where it is decided whether or not a law is Constitution. In order to determine whether a law is Constitutional the Supreme Court has to intepret the Constitution.

Ahem. http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4936
Prove it.

-But use a clean thread. And put up or shut up this time.

 

[acludem]

My proof that the Courts were intended to interpret the laws and the Constitution. Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

1. General Jurisdiction - The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made...

2. Supreme Court - ....In all the cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

In other words, the Supreme Court is the ulitimate court of appeals. The idea of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison The court ruled that in order to make such decisions it was intended to interpret the constitution (general jurisdiction, law and in fact, arising under this Constitution). This decision was made while most of the people who wrote the Constitution were alive. If they had vehemently disagreed with it, they would have worked for an amendment to reverse it. They didn't. The case arose from a last minute appointment in the Adams administration that was voided by the incoming Secretary of State, father of our Constitution, James Madison. Even those who disagreed with the court's decision didn't argue that it had the responsibility to interpret the Constitution.

acludem

 

[insein]

Originally posted by NewGuy
:

That sounded like it was aimed at ME.

no just in general. Dont take it personal buddy, Your very brilliant even if you have radical ideas.

 

[acludem]

I have posted a poll on gay marriage in a separate thread as per Jimmy's request in this thread. Check it out! It's easy to load questions in poll to get the answers you want.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

acludem:

Like a true socialist, you use circular logic, don't pay attention to the rules, and ignore what you're told.

Read the thread, your point was defeated before you started.

 

[acludem]

What the hell are you talking about? Jimmy said post a poll that will get a response that could show that a majority of the American people support gay marriage. I did just that, I just put in a separate thread. What rules did I break, and how did I use circular logic? Please, enlighten me o wise one. And I'm not a socialist, either btw.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by insein
no just in general. Dont take it personal buddy, Your very brilliant even if you have radical ideas.

Are you sure I am not radical with brilliant ideas?
:

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
What the hell are you talking about? Jimmy said post a poll that will get a response that could show that a majority of the American people support gay marriage. I did just that, I just put in a separate thread. What rules did I break, and how did I use circular logic? Please, enlighten me o wise one. And I'm not a socialist, either btw.

acludem

Then you are just stupid and have socialist viewpoints. Read 7 posts up.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

It really seems that all of you are not seeing the bigger picture. America's judicial and legislative institutions are secular in nature. This proposed constitutional amendment is nothing more than a political mechanism, albeit a fairly effective one.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
I have posted a poll on gay marriage in a separate thread as per Jimmy's request in this thread. Check it out! It's easy to load questions in poll to get the answers you want.

acludem

And even easier to answer them and get what you want. You lose. Dismissed.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Jimmy, let me correct you. IT IS the job of judges to interpret the Constitution. That's the entire function of the Supreme Court. The federal court system (districts, appeals, etc.) was created by Congress which was given the power to do so in the Constitution. Federal District court judges are charged with interpreting federal laws and the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the ultimate place where it is decided whether or not a law is Constitution. In order to determine whether a law is Constitutional the Supreme Court has to intepret the Constitution.

You have this entire thing ass backwards, and the sad part is that you actually believe this.

The judges job is NOT to interpret the constitution but rather to review the facts of the cases/laws and make sure they are constitutional. They make sure the laws conform to the constitution - not that the constitution conforms to the laws. Laws and cases were not meant to be overturned and used as political puppets because of the way one man/woman interprets the constitution.

In order to determine whether a law is constitutional the Supreme Court has to interpret the law and make sure it fits within the constitution.

Hell, I could interpret the constitution to back my beliefs that marijuana should be legal!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
As for this poll, who cares? If the majority of the country favored jumping off a bridge should we all do that? If I write the questions a little differently, I can produce a poll that shows the majority of the American people in fact support gay marriage.

I'm curious how you got into the line of questioning here anyway. Did you read the actual questions and disagree with the way they were asked? What, specifically, were those questions?

How about we make it easier on everyone. Get rid of everything that could be misleading to make you feel better. Take away all the obfuscation and narrow it down to one question that cannot be confused.

Do you support gay marriage?

Regardless of all your twisting and clouding of the issue - the overwhelming majority of Americans DO NOT support gay marriage. This has been indicated in EVERY poll no matter how the questions were asked. Additionally, anywhere from 38-50% support a constitutional amendment. Back the people into a corner and you'll see those numbers quickly rise. Most believe this can be handled appropriately in the courts but would be willing to support an amendment if the activist judges don't uphold the law.

 

[acludem]

There is no list of questions in the article, so it's hard to critique it. This is how I would write this poll to try and get at the truth of the situation, though as I've said, I believe it is nearly impossible to come up with a truly unbiased poll:

1. Do you believe a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman is necessary?

2. Would you be willing to accept civil unions for gay and lesbians couples as a compromise to allowing for the above mentioned amendment?

3. Do you believe the federal government or state governments should be making decisions about gay marriage and/or civil unions?

4. Will the issue of gay marriage significantly affect your voting in this year's election?

The next group of questions will help to determine a little about those answering the polls, this is so you can make sure your results are balanced and representative of the population as a whole.

1. Do you consider yourself a. Republican b. Democrat c. Libertarian d. other party e. independent

2. Do you attend religious services on a regular basis?

3. Are you married?

4. Are you 25 or younger, 25-40, 50-65, 66 or older?

That would be my professional poll on the issue. I would hope to gain the following information, one do people really care that much about the issue, two is religion and/or marital status a defining factor in one's opinion of the issue, three is there a difference based on age, and four what do most people actually think about this issue. I would be interested to hear your critiques.

 

[mattskramer]

I don't understand the "anti-gay-marriage" rhetoric and I have yet to find a clear, convincing, and irrefutable point supporting the conclusion that gays should not be allowed to marry each other. There are two main categories of argument opposing gay marriage. I will display them and refute them in general.

(A) One old argument is that the Bible condemns it. There are 3 counter-arguments against such a point.

(1) There is the Biblical debate itself. People have often debated about whether or not the Bible really opposes homosexual marriage. Given the time in which the Bible was written, biases of the writers, and personal interpretation some have concluded that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual union as it is understood today.

(2) There is the issue of selective application. If we are to make laws and rules based on the Bible, then why not include all Biblical laws, rules, and even advice (just to be safe)? I doubt that there are many that support such an idea.

(3) There are American Atheists and Agnostics. Some people think that the Bible is practically complete fiction. They have their own "Bible". I have a different "Bible". Why not use it as the law of the land?

(B) The second argument is "Natural Law". Heterosexuality is natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Therefore heterosexual marriage should be allowed but homosexual marriage should not be allowed. It is easily refuted.

(1) One argument for natural law is that marriage is for procreation. Yet, some people get married with no intention or ability to have children of their own. People do not have to get married in order to have children & people do not have to have children in order to be married. There are surrogate parents and adoption centers.

(2) A second argument for natural law is (without meaning to be too graphic) that body parts were "created" to serve 1 purpose each. Yet, the moisture of the eye can serve to hold contacts so that people may see more clearly, as well as keep the eye healthy. The bridge of the nose may be used to support eye glasses as well as help protect the nasal cavity. Is it natural to cut your hair or your nails?

Any more arguments against gay marriage?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Any more arguments against gay marriage?

Sure, you forgot one!

(C) The majority of Americans don't want to be associated with those that CHOOSE to engage in vile, disgusting acts.

Any more questions?

 

[William Joyce]

I'm closest to "let states decide." The Constitution is not a chalkboard for the liberal-conservative wars.

 

[mattskramer]

jimnyc wrote "The majority of Americans don't want to be associated with those that CHOOSE to engage in vile, disgusting acts."

I thought that the rebuttal to that argument would be so obvious that it wouldn't need to be stated. At any rate, here is the reply:

I recommend that those Americans who don't want to associate with those that choose to engage in acts that are (in their opinion) vile and disgusting choose not to associate with them.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I recommend that those Americans who don't want to associate with those that choose to engage in acts that are (in their opinion) vile and disgusting choose not to associate with them.

And that's exactly why so many oppose gay marriages. WE DON'T WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED!

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And that's exactly why so many oppose gay marriages. WE DON'T WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED!

I think that you made a leap in your logic. Your argument might assume an erroneous premise that if a gay individual is married to another gay individual, then you must associate with him. Yet, you do not have to associate with a gay individual regardless of his marital status.

Let's pretend that I don't like those who play poker. I don't want to associate with poker players. I consider their behavior to be vile and disgusting. Am I obligated to associate with poker players if they don't get married? - No. Am I obligated to associate with poker players if they do get married? - No.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by mattskramer
I think that you made a leap in your logic. Your argument might assume an erroneous premise that if a gay individual is married to another gay individual, then you must associate with him. Yet, you do not have to associate with a gay individual regardless of his marital status.

Let's pretend that I don't like those who play poker. I don't want to associate with poker players. I consider their behavior to be vile and disgusting. Am I obligated to associate with poker players if they don't get married? - No. Am I obligated to associate with poker players if they do get married? - No.

It's not erroneous. Marriage is sacred to many and we don't want our marriages put on the same level as those that think it's ok to have another mans penis jammed in their ass.