Conservative SCOTUS Justices FAIL: Backdoor Legislating by Marriage Attrition

[bodecea]

It only takes four votes in SCOTUS to hear a case. All it would've taken to prevent all of this was the four Conservative Justices voting to hear these appeals. But instead they chose to cave to an untested social trend born of the outspin of the groovy 1960s free-love cult. And in the end they have sacraficed the wellbeing of children on the altar of political pressures. Our conservative principles have finally been abandoned by the last bastion in place to preserve them... Vote accordingly... Independents anyone?

But...but didn't you insist that the stay that the USSC granted the state of Utah weeks ago was the court declaring that gay marriage bans are constitutional?

Now, the courts 'chose to cave to an untested social trend'.

Gee, its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what the **** you're talking about.

Hey...remember. This is a poster that thinks having 82% of posters think churches should not be forced to marry gay couples means that 82% are against legalized gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Those polls were taken of people ....and pay attention here because it's crucial....WHO WERE WILLING TO HONESTLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OPENLY.

See above with Doctorish's comment. He destroys your entire argument in 2 lines. It usually takes me dozens.

Those deterrants to an open conversation have not won the hearts of the people who...pay attention here...VOTE...but don't speak up publicly or even to a pollster [who they are almost certainly going to suspect is a pro-gay advocate] about "do you support gay marriage?"

Here's the problem with your reasoning. The folks that are going to vote in the manner you insist.....are already conservative. Among moderates and liberals (who make up the vast majority of the electorate), support for gay marriage is between 65 and 70%..

The voters you win over this issue, you already have. The voters you lose over this issue, you desperately need. Its a lose-lose scenario for republicans as it gains them nothing, and costs them dearly. And of course alienates the youth yet again, where support for gay marriage hovers near 80%.

So this is why we have the poll here, where these folks can vote anonymously, weighing in at 82% "Oh HELL NO!" on gay marriage making inroads into the deepest strongholds of society [a church] vs the poll results you just put up.

The poll doesn't ask any questions about the legality of gay marriage. It asks if places of worship should be required to accomidate gay weddings. You keep misrepresenting the poll.

It doesn't matter how many times you reference the poll, it still doesn't ask a single question about the legality of gay marriage. Every single poll I cited did.

It's the general public's fear to speak out. But that fear does not stop them from going behind the curtain of the voting booth.

The polling for Gallup, Pew, etc is anonymous. Making 'retribution' for 'speaking out' impossible.

If you believe otherwise, name anyone in May's Gallup poll. Name a single participant, with evidence. If you have no way of knowing who was part of the poll, how then can you possibly 'retaliate' against them?

You're just clutching at straws now.

Remember...the "church" thread has over 33,000 views. One of the most populated polls here at one of the most popular political websites on the net...of which 82% voted "oh HELL NO!" to gay marriage. And, MOST OF THOSE 82% didn't speak a peep about the topic on the thread....

The church thread doesn't ask any questions about the legality of gay marriage. Ending your argument yet again.

Keep scrambling.

Again, election strategists get out your pen and notepad.

So you're expecting election strategists to ignore Gallup, Pew, CNN polling, PPP, Reuter's polling, ABC polling, and any other scientific poll that asks about public support for the legality of gay marriage.....

....in favor of a lone unscientific poll taken on a random message board with a polling sample of about 180 people that doesn't poll support for the legality of gay marriage?

You realize that that's ******* insane, right?

 

[Skylar]

Gee, its almost like you don't have the slightest clue what the **** you're talking about.

Hey...remember. This is a poster that thinks having 82% of posters think churches should not be forced to marry gay couples means that 82% are against legalized gay marriage.

A minor detail. Barely worth mentioning.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey...remember. This is a poster that thinks having 82% of posters think churches should not be forced to marry gay couples means that 82% are against legalized gay marriage.

Remember what I said...remember what the poll question asked. It wasn't just "yes" or "no" it was "yes" or "oh HELL NO!"...

************

Those polls were taken of people ....and pay attention here because it's crucial....WHO WERE WILLING TO HONESTLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OPENLY.

Now that little detail becomes important when you consider that the cult of LGBT has made some pretty deep inroads in threatening and beating up the general public on board such as these, lawsuits, news articles etc. etc. and media coverage and promotion of ANYONE for ANY REASON objecting to gay marriage as "a dirty rotten horrible disgusting dispicable homophobe, bigot"....and my personal favorite to shut down the conversation honestly..."a closeted homosexual"...

Those deterrants to an open conversation have not won the hearts of the people who...pay attention here...VOTE...but don't speak up publicly or even to a pollster [who they are almost certainly going to suspect is a pro-gay advocate] about "do you support gay marriage?"
So this is why we have the poll here, where these folks can vote anonymously, weighing in at 82% "Oh HELL NO!" on gay marriage making inroads into the deepest strongholds of society [a church] vs the poll results you just put up.

It's the general public's fear to speak out. But that fear does not stop them from going behind the curtain of the voting booth.

Remember...the "church" thread has over 33,000 views. One of the most populated polls here at one of the most popular political websites on the net...of which 82% voted "oh HELL NO!" to gay marriage. And, MOST OF THOSE 82% didn't speak a peep about the topic on the thread....

They just tiptoed in.....voted...tiptoed out and back into the shadows.
Again, election strategists get out your pen and notepad.

 

[Skylar]

Remember what I said...remember what the poll question asked. It wasn't just "yes" or "no" it was "yes" or "oh HELL NO!"...

We do remember what question was asked:

Should places of worship be required to hold gay weddings

Which has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage. Next.

Those polls were taken of people ....and pay attention here because it's crucial....WHO WERE WILLING TO HONESTLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OPENLY.

The scientific polls are anonymous. Making your entire 'revenge' fantasy impossible. Next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is going to be very unhappy with the elections.

 

[Skylar]

Sil is going to be very unhappy with the elections.

You could remove 'with the elections', and your post would be just as true.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indeed.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil is going to be very unhappy with the elections.

You're right in a weird way. The GOP will probably take control of the Senate back by a slim margin. And that means that in order to stop this social plague we will have to lose any chance at affordable healthcare or meaningful pollution control of fracking entering our freshwater resources. Also you can kiss the budding green energy industry goodbye...

 

[Syriusly]

[l
Remember...the "church" thread has over 33,000 views. One of the most populated polls here at one of the most popular political websites on the net...of which 82% voted "oh HELL NO!" to gay marriage. And, MOST OF THOSE 82% didn't speak a peep about the topic on the thread....
.

And that is entirely meaningless.

140 some people voted.

In an entirely meaningless 'poll'.

Anyone who has taken a high school stats class would understand why.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is going to be very unhappy with the elections.

You're right in a weird way. The GOP will probably take control of the Senate back by a slim margin. And that means that in order to stop this social plague we will have to lose any chance at affordable healthcare or meaningful pollution control of fracking entering our freshwater resources. Also you can kiss the budding green energy industry goodbye...

I know your head feels like it is exploding from the immense pressure of losing this issue, but your conclusion is merely unicorn dreaming. Nothing of the sort will happen if the GOP take control of the Senate.

 

[Silhouette]

[l
Remember...the "church" thread has over 33,000 views. One of the most populated polls here at one of the most popular political websites on the net...of which 82% voted "oh HELL NO!" to gay marriage. And, MOST OF THOSE 82% didn't speak a peep about the topic on the thread....
.

And that is entirely meaningless. 140 some people voted. In an entirely meaningless 'poll'.

Anyone who has taken a high school stats class would understand why.

Over 150 voted. [average for USMB polls runs around just under a dozen votes] The poll/thread has 33,000 views. So it has discernable significance to quite a group of people. You realize polls are taken from smaller numbers of people and extrapolated. 150 people voting I think is one of the largest if not THE largest polls at USMB ever. So you extrapolate just that fact alone and come up with the polling-conclusion "this topic is VERY important to many people". ...you know how this goes...follow me along here...

Then you look at HOW this amazing number of people voted: 82% "no" on gay marriage being forced on churches. Then you look at the actual question itself which doesn't just say "no"...it says in effect "oh HELL NO!". So then you extrapolate that not only do these people say "no" to that question but that they feel very emphatic about it.

From there, logic allows you some leeway to suppose that if 82% of the great number of people who showed up to vote on this popular poll said "oh HELL NO!" to gay marriage being forced on churches, you could also theorize from there that around the same number would feel the same way about gay adoptions being forced on catholic charities or other religious orphanages...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, no: no, the poll represents absolutely nothing in the world outside of the Board, and in the Board those for and against marriage equality are overwhelmingly in favor of 1st Amendment protections for churches in their private sphere.

 

[Syriusly]

[l
Remember...the "church" thread has over 33,000 views. One of the most populated polls here at one of the most popular political websites on the net...of which 82% voted "oh HELL NO!" to gay marriage. And, MOST OF THOSE 82% didn't speak a peep about the topic on the thread....
.

And that is entirely meaningless. 140 some people voted. In an entirely meaningless 'poll'.

Anyone who has taken a high school stats class would understand why.

Over 150 voted. [average for USMB polls runs around just under a dozen votes] The poll/thread has 33,000 views..

Like I said- absolutely meaningless- and anyone who has taken a high school statistics class would know why.

 

[bendog]

Come on, science is irrelevant. I mean global warming and all. We ignore science.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, no: no, the poll represents absolutely nothing in the world outside of the Board, and in the Board those for and against marriage equality are overwhelmingly in favor of 1st Amendment protections for churches in their private sphere.

This board is a public board. Ergo, this board is "the world outside". It's one of the most popular political debate boards in the US. Its threads show up in first hits in searches consistently. I guess what you're saying is that the poll wasn't "property sanitized first before it was released to the public"? It's raw...showing raw numbers in real time?

I'd say of all the polls out there, folks should pay attention to those raw real-time ones and ignore the "sanitized versions". Remember how over a million "likes" hit the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of it opening, in response to support for Phil Robertson's anti gay marriage stance?

That was a raw, real-time poll too. Bet you're going to denounce it as well because "a certain group of people the LGBT machine trusts hadn't sanitized it first"..

 

[Syriusly]

That was a raw, real-time poll too. Bet you're going to denounce it as well because "a certain group of people the LGBT machine trusts hadn't sanitized it first"..

I am not denouncing it- I am mocking your interpretation of the poll as having any significance.

No one with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics would make the claims you are making.

No one without an anti-gay agenda would make the claims you are making.

 

[Silhouette]

I am not denouncing it- I am mocking your interpretation of the poll as having any significance.

No one with a rudimentary knowledge of statistics would make the claims you are making.

No one without an anti-gay agenda would make the claims you are making.

And no one with a rudimentary grasp on statistics would leave out the "afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being labelled a homophobe" variable in reporting the "margin of error factor" in any polling data they release...

 

[Skylar]

I'd say of all the polls out there, folks should pay attention to those raw real-time ones and ignore the "sanitized versions". Remember how over a million "likes" hit the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of it opening, in response to support for Phil Robertson's anti gay marriage stance?

And you'd be wrong, of course.

First, your poll doesn't ask any questions about the legality of gay marriage. Which is what you're falsely claim it does. Ending your entire argument immediately.

Second, its a straw poll. Interested parties can vote. And they can vote multiple times if they're willing to create multiple handles. Straw polls are notoriously unreliable. As any national election involving Ron Paul makes clear. He won every straw poll by unheard of margins. And lost every election by margins nearly as huge. Rendering the results effectively useless in determining public sentiment.

Anonymous, random polling is a far more reliable indication of actual support. And every scientific poll on the topic taken in the last 18 months shows the same result. Solid support for gay marriage. With polls taken this year showing between 12 and 19 point margins in favor of gay marriage. And every single one of these anonymous, random and scientific polls actually asking about legality of gay marriage.

Your poll never does.

Third, your polling sample is tiny. 140 people. That's not a credible basis of a national poll. It doesn't matter if its large for USMB. Its too small for any reliable polling.

Fourth, your poll is singular. Where the polls contradicting you number in the dozens. And all of the polls contradicting you say the same thing: support for gay marriage is strong and growing. Strictly by the numbers, your poll would be what you'd call an 'outlier'.... if it had actually asked about the legality of gay marriage. Since your poll never asks about the legality of gay marriage, it what you'd call 'irrelevant'.

Scientifically, statistically, mathematically, even linguistically, your poll is inadequate to carry your argument. Which is pretty obvious to everyone. I don't think even you believe your own argument, as you fastidiously avoid discussion of the obvious problems with your poll. Like the fact that it never asks about the legality of gay marriage.

If you didn't know how weak your argument was, you wouldn't be avoiding its weaknesses so consistently.

 

[Skylar]

nd no one with a rudimentary grasp on statistics would leave out the "afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being labelled a homophobe" variable in reporting the "margin of error factor" in any polling data they release...

You don't have a rudimentary grasp of statistics. Else you would never have offered us a straw poll with a sampling size of 140 that never asks about the legality of gay marriage as a reliable measurement of national sentiment about the legality of gay marriage.

As for the "afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being labelled a homophobe" variable'' you've made up, that's quite impossible for reasons you already know: the scientific polls that contradict you are anonymous. Watch, I'll demonstrate.

Name anyone who took the May 2014 Gallup poll on the legality of gay marriage. You'll need evidence to affirm that they actually did take the poll. Go ahead. I'll wait.

..........

.......

.....

...

.

Nothing, huh? Couldn't name a single person because no one is ever named, huh?

That's exactly why your latest excuse for ignoring overwhelming evidence can't possibly work. As you can't be named a homophobe...if no one knows your name.