More on Gay Marriage [link]
Posted in Lifestyle, Politics, Religion, humor by George
Anti-gay marriage amendments have been quite successful in various states. I’ve never understood why… that is, until now. The Top 10 Reasons Gay Marriage Should be Illegal explains it all. My favorite reason was:
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
In all seriousness, I’m still waiting for someone to send a guest article to gimme-five justifying an anti-gay marriage stance. Please send something to george AT gimme-five DOT COM so we can have some debate about the issue. Anyone?
November 13th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
I’m sorry, but how does it make it less meaningful? I believe that it would be more meaingful sense those to gay people had to do so much just to be with the ones they loved.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
This list of 10 reasons is way too funny. I will forward it to some of my anti-gay-marriage friends. It is almost as if someone quoted them and addes a punch line.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Ok George… I’ll bite and debate why people aren’t arguing with you… And only because I am in a pissy mood from work today.
A lot of people don’t give a crap… You can give all the reasons why this is right or that is wrong and really I haven’t read any. Why…? Because I can pretty much imagine what they are going to say. There are benefits of marriage…and that is why is desired. If there wasn’t an economic or personal gain by the act of marriage, it wouldn’t be an issue.
How much does a normal American care about this stuff? So much of what we “care” about is broadcasted by the media, government officials, role models, societal groups…
How much is this just election year blabber?
Gun control… that was hot a little while ago… heard anything about that lately?
Abortion…supposedly Pres. Bush and his supreme court picks were going to impinge on female freedoms…
Stem Cells?
So the hot topic is now gay marriage… everybody has a side…everybody has an opinion… how much if it is just stirred up for the last month?
The American public just went out and elected a new majority in the house and senate primarily on the premise that “there needs to be change”… and no real platform especially not in my state. The “change” will probably continue to the next presidential election.
So really when it comes down to it.. for each topic there are 4 types of people:
1)I personally care and I am against it and will fight sooooo hard for my cause.
2)I somewhat care and I am against it. I am not really going to fight, because it isn’t really my cause.
3) I somewhat care and I am for it. I too won’t really fight because like #2 I have to worry about my real problems.
4) I personally care and I am for it and am always fighting for it.
Really in the gay marriage thing its probably
20% For it and fighting
30% For it and won’t say anything unless somebody else brings it up
30% Against it and won’t say anything unless somebody brings it up
20% Totally against it.
So 40% cares, but are polar opposites…60% worries about food and who is playing football on friday, saturday, sunday and monday instead. And I may be generous…maybe when the heat has died down 20% cares and 80% would rather watch football
November 15th, 2006 at 9:46 am
I don’t know if I follow your argument. If the population is evenly distributed, as you’re claiming, then why did gay marriage bans pass with such ease in so many states?
November 16th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
They passed because people wanted them to… my percentages were hypothetical…I do not pretend to have my finger on the pulse of same sex marriage stuff…i’ll let you politicos do that stuff.
I wonder if people who vote actually are representative of the full population of legal voters. To go back to my hypothetical percentages…
20% Care: No
30% kinda Care: No
30% kinda Care: Yes
20% Care: Yes
Perhaps this has been “pitched” through normal advertising channels as the topic of the century for the “kinda Care: No” types. The normal groups of churches, conservative types, media etc… pool their resources and you have mobilized a good force of voters.
So if the city has 100,000 people, you can do the math and get how many care for each side. The campaigning gets 90% of the “Care: No” people to get to vote, and 70% of the “kinda Care: No” people to vote. The Yes side may not have the same channels and resources so their turnout is less…even though they should have an equal chance. So there is 80% “Care: Yes” and 40% “kinda Care: No”.
Math:
18,000 Care: No
21,000 kinda Care: No
16,000 Care: Yes
12,000 kinda Care: Yes
Total Votes: 39,000 No: 58%, 28,000 Yes: 42%
Clear win huh…
November 17th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Here’s another example.
People tend to vote only on objectives that affect them personally. So, you have a few groups of people…
1. Conservatives or religious voters who feel threatened by homosexuals or don’t want to promote same-sex behaviors.
2. Voters in same-sex relationships.
3. Voters who are truly concerned with the civil rights of others (perhaps, like George).
In general, 1 >> 2 + 3.
Factor in that senior citizens, who grew up in a time where homosexuality wasn’t as accepted, make up a substantial portion of the voter pool.
I believe the idea here is that controversial ballot measures only attract the most extreme voters. And there are a lot more religious voters than homosexuals or civil rights activists. The general public may have a different feeling, but the decision does not impact them in everyday life, so they don’t contribute to the results.
November 18th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Karl Rove stategy was to get the hardcore conservatives to the polls. A focused power group who show up to the polls are more important than the middle since many in the middle or young don’t show up to vote. His focus wasn’t to try to win the middle in 2004. He did this by making same sex marriage a campaign issue to stir up emotion for the social conservatives. It worked. The religious right came out to the polls and voiced their opinion. That and the issue to re-elect a president during a war time were the central strategies to get Bush re-elected.
This was the opposite of Clinton’s strategy when he won. His focus was more to win the undecided or people in the middle. He did’t do all he could to win the fringe and get them to the polls. One of the defining moments in that election was his Sista Souljah moment. This was his attempt at winning the moderate and indepedent voters.