How about this one? On Monday, California became the second state in the nation to legally recognize same-sex marriages. Do you think gay marriages should be legal in Colorado?
"No" is currently leading.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
How about this one? On Monday, California became the second state in the nation to legally recognize same-sex marriages. Do you think gay marriages should be legal in Colorado?
"No" is currently leading.
Similar one in Baltimore...
http://foxbaltimore.com/newsroom/poll/qod_form.shtml
You have to give your email address and do a captcha to vote, but you can include comments.
Ugg. Just when I thought my state was showing some signs of being compassionate and sensible...
Y 41.46%
N 57.31%
NS 1.23%
Done and done.
Went there, did that. Always down for a poll. Heading over to Baltimore now...
Dammit... the Baltimore one won't give me a damn code to submit... grrrrrrr...
Ah well. A for effort?
Yes: 48.70%
No: 50.25%
Not Sure: 1.05%
Our Mayor Gavin Newsome married a couple today who had been together for 50 years. It's a great day here in San Francisco and for our State.
you don't have to give the baltimore poll anything to vote, but you do have to type in the key displayed on the screen.
Yes, master! I obey!
45% Yes.
Over here in Southern California, gay marriages started happening at 5:01 PM. The general understanding has been that the state will embrace sodomy tomorrow, but apparently it varies by county.
I think couples ought to give up the "gay" designation for the duration of the marriage. Otherwise gay divorce will lose its meaning.
Californians should request the creation of a licence-plate with 'The Same-Sex Marriage State' on it, perhaps with the silhouette of two men (or two women) on it.
Just voted and the yes vote is now leading!!
Ugh. I'd stay out of the comments section on the Fox site. Some of the opinions and attitudes in there range from bewildering to disgusting.
Hooray, "Yes" is currently leading.
bad jim, #10, wrote:
That evokes a very interesting visual...
Just voted. Yes is now leading with 54.8% to 44.3%
Godless Bastards: Mobilize.
:D
Yes is now leading at 55.45% against no at 43.67% and the fence-sitters at a slim 0.88%
Yes still leading. Unfortunately it's because most of the people voting are not from Colorado.
Yes 56.87%
No 42.31%
Not Sure 0.82%
as of 9:47pm PDT
All of you do realize that these internet polls are completely meaningless and do not in anyway represent the true distribution of opinions.
Crashing a poll once in a while is fun, but I think its getting out of proportion on this blog these days. Too many polls.
Yes 58.97%
No 40.14%
NS 0.89%
Yes 60.21%
that's my good duty for the day.
And for that Maryland poll:
63.63% Yes
36.36% No
CNN has one too...
My wet dream for the day: all of these crashable polls turn into US school board elections.
Yes of course we realize the Bharat, that's the whole point, to demonstrate that they're all worthless by crashing the. And if you don't want to participate you can just skip the daily poll, pretend it's not even there and just let the rest of us have our amusement if we please. Or you can be all snobbish and annoying about it...
Heh, poll crashing is all in good fun!
As an aside, ever been to Colorado Springs? It seems (or seemed, when I was there a decade ago) to be evenly divided between the people who are there for Ted Haggard's church, and the homosexuals who are there to annoy the first group of people. Both groups believe strongly in the right to keep and bear arms. I'm amazed that there hasn't been open war in the streets.
*crashing them* that would be. gotta remember to proofread before i post, not after...
As a Californian, I have to say no. This whole allowing gay marriage in California has been a great stimulus to our economy. All the gays in the US are flocking to California and we are happy to feed and shelter you.
In all seriousness though, go gay marriage. You shouldn't have to fly across the country to spend your life with the person you love.
I just voted from gay California in favor of same-sex marriages in Colorado.
It feels naughty.
(On-line polls are so stupid. May they all crash and burn!)
Remember, Colorado tried to make it illegal for gays to even seek anti-discrimination claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
Maryland: Yes 66.66%, No 33.33%
Colorado: Yes 66.0%, No, 33.3%, Not sure 0.7%
We're killin 'em. Now, if only things were the same in real life.................
"You shouldn't have to fly across the country to spend your life with the person you love."
I don't see why you have to get married at all to spend your life with the person you love.
i live in Colorado Springs. Nice city, and I don't really notice the evangelical types that much. Now and then I'll read in the newspaper an editorial from the local freaks at Focus on the Family or some other "pro-family" organization, usually with "research" or "study" in their title. All in all, a nice place to live.
Hmm.. I totally failed to hear the awful din caused by millions of heterosexual marriages in CA becoming worthless...
Voted yes, but also noted on the top of the page that they will put to death a knight. How nobility has fallen. I wonder how Sir Mario was knighted in the first place.
As an Aussie it is embarrassing to admit they we are no better than a number of your states when it comes to recognising same sex marriage. But, I noticed when crashing the poll that the headline at the minute is some dude has been sentenced to death in Colorado. At least we can take the high moral ground when it comes to that. Nice that the US is still up there with China and Iran when it comes to state sponsored murder.
BTW I did read up on what Sir Mario had done. Nasty piece of work. Should go behind bars forever. However...
#35: Well, he HAS saved the Mushroom Kingdom a lot, it's about time he got something for...Oh, not that Mario.
I object. Massachusetts is "The Same-Sex Marriage State". If California asks nicely we might let it be "That Other Same-Sex Marriage State".
"Yes" ahead now by just over 71%.
Colorado:
Yes 71.09%
No 28.15%
NS 0.76%
Maryland:
70.37% Yes
29.62% No
Note the story, "Child Prostitution Suspected to Increase During DNC":
From the headline, the reporter goes on about how the sex trade increases during political events. Why then is the DNC being blamed in the title?
Well, it's being held in Denver this year, and it is MyFox Colorado. But further on, the article notes that "Los Angeles police say prostitution jumped there in 2000 when it held the DNC."
Wow. Those Dems sure are dirty. But what's this? The very last paragraph says "It also turns out that prostitution is non-partisan. According to reports, former sex workers say business is actually better at the Republican convention."
Ah, well. Reports say that the sex trade increases during both conventions, but even more so at Republican conventions, so it makes perfect sense to title the article "Child Prostitution Suspected to Increase During DNC."
I wonder what headline Fox'll use when it covers the same issue at the RNC?
Oh, I know. "RNC Stimulates Local Economy, Biggest Gains Made by Female Small Business Owners."
Good 'ol FOX news! Here's one of their headlines: "Child Prostitution Suspected to Increase During DNC".
Of course, you have to go all the way to the end of the article to read: "It also turns out that prostitution is non-partisan. According to reports, former sex workers say business is actually better at the Republican convention."
Yes
72.08%
No
27.19%
Not Sure
0.73%
pwnt by the PZ effect.
Tomorrow is my anniversary; and I will be glad to share it with hundreds/thousands of people who are finally being allowed to marry.
74% in favour now.
The godless hoards triumph again!
A few years ago, the issue of "civil unions" for gay people was on the ballot here in Colorado. It lost - but the final tally was something like 47% pro and 53% con. Very close.
no isn't leading anymore.
Way cool that gay people finally have the same rights as hets
What I don't understand is why this is an issue
I did my duty.
Yes - 77.35%
No - 22.02 %
"I have no spine" - 0.63%
"The general understanding has been that the state will embrace sodomy tomorrow"
"That evokes a very interesting visual..."
Especially since it has been spooning with Nevada since the 1860's at least.
"All of you do realize that these internet polls are completely meaningless and do not in anyway represent the true distribution of opinions."
I voted to make certain people shit their pants. That's enough for me.
FOX, eh? It'll be interesting to see how far this poll and/or our votes vanish when they realise "their" option isn't winning. Anyhow:
Yes
78.38%
No
21.01%
Not Sure
0.61%
Hell yes. After all, I'm looking at UC Boulder for my PhD, and I wanna be able to marry my man! (Me, er, being a man myself).
:)
What does allowing gay marriage have to do with 'godlessness'? Reading the comments I get the feeling that many here are not opposing Christianity, but conservatism. Many conservatives embrace Christianity and reject atheism, but we should remember that there are godless people who aren't Christian but nevertheless oppose gay marriage (myself being one of them.)
Well... there goes another poll. Always nice to tip over these type of polls :-)
"Yes" now up to 79.4%...
but we should remember that there are godless people who aren't Christian but nevertheless oppose gay marriage -Scaurus
But no true atheist is a bigot!
BTW, as a socialistic foreigner, I always enjoy interfering with US internal affairs by crashing a poll!
Why isn't there a 'Who Really Cares?' category? It shouldn't be an issue at all. Many of my gay friends are annoyed by it, truth be told.
Scaurus: It's because in general opposition to homosexuality is strictly religious in origin. Either that, or it's related to a kind of fear and subsequent denial of one's own homosexual desires, such a person lashes out at what he most fears about himself. Those two factors often work together, though, as has been seen in the scandals involving republican political leaders or megachurch leaders.
When you see people protesting at gay rights marches, you don't see people with signs that say "I don't believe in God, but I STILL don't want you to have the same rights that I do!". You see biblical quotes, or signs informing them that they're all going to Hell.
It is a hot button topic used by religious leaders to rally their forces behind some good old fashioned bigotry. It's like the bumper stickers say, "who would Jesus hate?".
Whatever your non theistic reason to oppose it, you are in the minority. That is why the focus is on the religious basis for this sort of thing.
Yes 80.29%
No 19.16%
Not sure 0.55%
"Reading the comments I get the feeling that many here are not opposing Christianity, but conservatism. "
Hey, I don't discriminate. I oppose fear-based bigotry regardless of what label you put on it.
I do appreciate, however, your attempts to reinforce conservatism's image as being bigoted. That's a public relations campaign I can get behind fully.
Hmm, I think the "PZ effect" is a nice term for a poll to suddenly show sanity, even if it's in a place where you wouldn't expect it.
@anaglyph (#59)
Your gay friends are *annoyed* by the fact that laws are changing in favour of ensuring that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation is treated fairly and that no one be excluded from marriage or marital benefits ensured by law based on their sexual orientation?
I find that very difficult to believe. Very, very difficult. So difficult, in fact, that I'd like to invite your gay friends to respond here themselves and tell us poor, ignorant folks just what it is they find soooo annoying about gay marriage.
Re: Some guy who's puppeting the zombie of Kenny
Does throwing chum in the water make you think sharks love you?
Our Mayor Gavin Newsome married a couple today who had been together for 50 years. It's a great day here in San Francisco and for our State.
Not just together for over 50 years, but two of the founders of the first openly lesbian organization in the United States, the Daughters of Bilitis.
More weddings so that the trolls' head will melt!
Posted by: Scaurus | June 17, 2008 4:05 AM
And it's nice to see Kenny has a bigoted friend in the atheist camp.
It's not really bigotry as much as it is fighting a movement to put whatever garbage in our homes as possible, ruin our society, ruin our children and basically flush all the morals and religion down the toilet
Gay people are garbage who are ruining society. Nope, no bigotry whatsoever.
Oh, yeah:
HAPPY EQUALITY CALIFORNIANS!
Okay, own up - who keeps trying to put gay people into Kenny's home?
I was able to vote twice in that poll. Well, now I have no confidence in it whatsoever.
Tom p.
Do you confidence in polls under any other circimstances?
Kate.
I think what anaglyph means is that his friends are annoyed that people are even making a problem out of gay marriage, when it shouldn't even be questioned that every should have equal rights.
Kate @ 67. If you read it again I think you'll find it means they're not annoyed about the law changes, they're annoyed that it's an issue at all.
Tuesday, 7 am:
Colorado: 83 % Yes
Maryland: 80 % Yes
It would be better to establish equality by banning heterosexual marriage.
Just my opinion.
I think that, following Dennett's attempt to make the memes of religious less destructive, that one aims at modernizing religion. Incorporating gay marrige into American religion is a start.
Emigrate to NZ! There Civil Partnerships are open to anyone and cover anything from someone naming a relative as official nex of kin to civil marriage. It is open to *people* in relationships.
I'm reading today that the immigration officers are so over worked they are forced to pass applications without proper scrutiny too...
The door is ajar, just push to enter.
Now currently 83% yes, 16% no. Apparently the bit about conservatives being able to mobilize better is a myth. Either that or they don't stay up late enough at night. ;)
I was in the room when Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon got married several hours ago and it was really beautiful. (I work at the Lyon-Martin clinic and several of us were there.)
My stoic partner (who will in a few hours after I get off work legally husband if we can get into the court-house today) was tearing up. Gavin Newsom kept smiling and shruging when he came to parts of the ceremony where he asked them if they promised to be faithful to each other and was supposed to do the lecture about the seriousness of marriage. Um... I think we can assume yes, they get that.
When we left city hall to go to the reception, there was this small area of whacknuts with their anti-gay signs behind police barricades (probably to protect them) but they were literally drowned out by the cheers. Kinda like that poll. ;)
NickG,
Welcome to full citizenship. Congratulations. (and I'm jealous as hell about the Martin/Lyon wedding attendance--we owe those two women so much.)
@Nomad
'It's because in general opposition to homosexuality is strictly religious in origin. Either that, or it's related to a kind of fear and subsequent denial of one's own homosexual desires, such a person lashes out at what he most fears about himself.'
I neither oppose nor fear homosexuality. Homosexuals are not inferior to heterosexuals. It is just that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, its nature being that it brings together two 'opposites' and allows them to form a family. Theoretically, homosexuals can form a family by adopting children, but they (as a couple) can never give a child the upbringing a 'normal' couple can give.
Theoretically, homosexuals can form a family by adopting children, but they (as a couple) can never give a child the upbringing a 'normal' couple can give.
Indeed, looking at the data, "homosexuals" are better parents. (See, Stacey 1997 and Stacey and Biblarz 2001 (American Sociological Review))
Currently 84.48%YES/15.05%NO
Here in Canada gay marriage has been legal for a number of years (length of time varies from province to province). You can also be openly gay in the military and get married to your partner by an army Chaplin.
Of course the effect has been a complete disaster. Marriage has lost all meaning, our children have lost their moral compass, our armed forces are completely demoralized and people are being persecuted for religious beliefs. My wife and I feel our vows now mean nothing and have lost our emotional connection.
Oh wait....NONE of that stuff has happened. The net effect of allowing gay marriage has been that a whole group of people can stop feeling excluded from society and our society has a whole becomes more accepting and less bigoted.
It is unfortunate that the opponents of gay marriage (and homosexuality in general) don't take a minute to examine what has happened in countries that have allowed gay marriage. All their arguments fail to hold any water when the actual results are examined.
Is there a familiar theme here?
Come on MAJeff, Scaurus knows the truth about homosexuality, don't try to confuse him/her with mere factual data!
So, no marriage rights for the infertile, then. Nor for couples who choose to remain childless.
NickG said:
Congratulations and every happiness in your future wedded lives to you both.
Scaurus:
What MAJeff said - if you're going to try and weasel out of your homophobic bigotry by appealing to some vague sociological "normality" (and what is so great about normal anyway?) at least try and make sure that your appeals match the facts.
MNosey said:
Unfortunately to a certain kind of mind, this is not considered a good thing.
Come on MAJeff, Scaurus knows the truth about homosexuality, don't try to confuse him/her with mere factual data!
I know. I really do need to get used to being deficient and without social value.
its nature being that it brings together two 'opposites' and allows them to form a family.
So, no marriage rights for the infertile, then. Nor for couples who choose to remain childless.
Yeah, and I guess heterosexual couples who are too similar can't get married either? Why discriminate against certain pairings of sexual organs but not against more meaningful things, such as personality traits? If the purpose of marriage (according to you anyway) is to bring together two "opposites", then why allow two catholics or whatever to marry? Two catholics will probably be more similar than two random people of the same sex. Heck, or why allow same-race couples? Maybe we should only allow people of two different races, religions, personalities, etc to marry. After all, the purpose of marriage IS to bring opposites together right?
Bullshit. If anything, the purpose of marriage is to bring two people together who share deep, important similarities.
but we should remember that there are godless people who aren't Christian but nevertheless oppose gay marriage (myself being one of them.)
But what about the godless people who are Christian? How does that confused constituency stand on the issue?
Come on MAJeff, Scaurus knows the truth about homosexuality, don't try to confuse him/her with mere factual data!
Scaurus @81: "its nature being that it brings together two 'opposites' and allows them to form a family."
He's a computer geek, my palm and laptop function because he's my tech support. He likes movies with subtitles, I like comedy/action. He rides a motorcycle and I think helmets should be used in cars. He thinks raw jalepenos are a side dish, I find TacoBell's medium to be intolerable. But more importantly than being 'opposites', we love each other. That's what makes a marriage.
And we don't have a child of our own. However, a friend's teen-aged son who was flunking school (straight F's and expelled) stole my partner's bike last year and crashed it into a car. Now the boy lives our same sex home (actually us two and my partner's parents who live with us). We did this because his mom and stepdad literally couldn't handle him but my partner does better. He's now passing most of his classes (in a more rigorous school.) The juvenile judge who is supervising his probation (for GTA of my partner's bike) told my partner she wished she could clone him.
That is of course an anecdote, and the plural of anecdote is 'not data', but then the ASR citation for better data is above.
Love makes a marriage, and giving a crap about a kid makes a parent.
Sorry about the double post.
Love makes a marriage, and giving a crap about a kid makes a parent.
Imagine, it's the content and not the form of the relationships that actually matters!
Does anyone else feel like one of the lesser vehicles from the vehicular Voltron when PZ assembles us to crash a poll?
But what about the godless people who are Christian? How does that confused constituency stand on the issue?
We like gay marriage, thanks for asking. :)
Here's some footage from the Martin/Lyon public reception with Mayor Newsom.
Doing my bit to help. Yes is up 86/13
YES ALREADY.
Gosh. Something so simple and so meaningless... Why is it always a big fight?
What's the godless equivalent of "Amen, brotha!"? Because I'm so feeling what NickG had to say in #89...
86% yes now! nice job people!
Yes is up to 87% now.
87.42% in favor of yes.
BEST DESIGNED POLL EVAR!
I just voted ten times.
That's the problem with you atheists, always stirring the pot.
i have an extra spoon if you find yourself running low.
Dog bless you all.
I find it baffling that Scaurus claims he's not opposed to homosexuality but does believe it to be abnormal. Could you provide some clarification about that, sir? And what is this business about marriage being solely for the purpose of producing children?
Scaurus may claim he's an atheist, but he certainly doesn't sound like one. Still, I suppose it's a big world, so there must be room for bigoted, homophobic, intolerant, and generally stupid atheists, even if they're a minority.
Just voted Yes, but it seems I was late to the party, No is getting trounced hard.
I can understand being gay and being anti-marriage. I'm more or less straight and anti-marriage. I personally don't think the state has any business sanctioning interpersonal relations like that, and I intensely dislike that marriage originated as a patriarchal means of property exchange enacted on women's bodies. Yeah, that sort of bugs me.
On the other hand, considering that civil marriage is not going away any time soon and that at least in the US, there is no other way of securing for yourself the ~1000 or so legal rights that pertain to it, I'm all for it. Segregationist separate-and-unequal arrangements lead to things like this. That's what this is really about. Not "children," not "families," not the romantic claptrap we've put around marriage -- it's about property rights, inheritance, establishing legal next of kin, and making sure that Auntie Ellie can go visit Auntie Bea in the hospital, even over their family's objections, and automatic powers-of-attorney, and all that good stuff. In other words, for strictly legal reasons, let's have equal civil marriage for all consenting adults who want it...
(I think Scarus' "opposites" argument is a disguised claim that "the pieces don't fit," but oh yes they do.)
Wow, they sure are liberal in Colorado.
Christopher,
I think you're putting too much of a value judgment on "abnormal". I could easily see how an atheist could believe it to be abnormal: it's certainly atypical, and it's unclear what, if any, adaptive value it may have.
Many psychological disorders, in fact, are defined in a very sketchy manner. The attentional problems of ADD, for example, are defined by how much they interfere with one's life. How much they interfere with one's life, of course, is determined by how much others expect one to be focused and obedient.
Though actually, Saurus never says homosexuality is abnormal. What he says is actually worse, that a homosexual couple cannot give a 'normal' upbringing to a child. This puts a high value on whatever 'normal' is, ignoring the high incidence of poor parenting. My children are half-Japanese, half-Caucasian American. They've spent significant amounts of time in both places. They are atheistic (at least the oldest is), all of which are "abnormal". He implies that anything "abnormal" is also "inferior" -- this is unwarranted.
Around 89% "yes" now. However, I couldn't vote. I could see the totals, but didn't see an actual place to submit a vote. Odd.
Well, problem solved. My job here is done.
All this talk about gay marriage being 'not normal'. There's a lot of things that are not normal, but are being tolerated / accepted anyway, and are no (longer) an impediment to marriage. Interracial marriage was once considered 'not normal'.
Also, why do some people think that because seomthing is unusual or 'not normal', it is automatically inferior or wrong?
I think Scaurus is just trying to Scarus.
Who is "not sure"? What's going on inside their heads? This is a most interesting question to me.
Congrats to NickG & everyone else typing the knot... I wish all of you the very best.
Re: Scaurus, and his objection to homosexual marriage - I think he maybe saw a pee pee once and it scared him. Certainly he's manifesting some angst. Maybe he should see someone?
Yes, master, I voted Yes.
I have gotten hooked to crashing polls listed here
Thanks for tilting this one. I voted on it last night here in Colorado, and was a little dismayed by the negative numbers. Thanks for putting it the other way!
Happy anniversary, Samantha and spouse!
Just voted yes.
Crashing polls like these is important because people look at them and invariably choose the winning side - even if they oppose the outcome. It has something to do with mob mentality or majority-rules type of thing; caveat: I am not a pzychologist. I think we are doing "good" by presenting the correct views to the mainstream public; making our position visible and viable. "Let my sheeple grow."
Colorado:
Yes: 89.61 %
No: 9.98 %
Not sure: 0.41 %
Total votes: 4497
Maryland:
Yes: 85.48 %
No: 14.51 %
Total votes: top secret
BTW, people, if you believe you can vote twice, try again and see if the vote total climbs by more than one. It often does when ten Pharyngulites are voting per minute.
"All of you do realize that these internet polls are completely meaningless and do not in anyway represent the true distribution of opinions."
I wouldn't go so far as to say "completely meaningless". Surely some people who are against gay marriage will look at the results and think, "Hold on, I didn't realise I was in such a minority!" Many people don't know how inaccurate these polls are. Appearances do matter, whether we like it or not.
And (if you are clever enough to spot the spelling difference) yes, I am not a US citizen... so of course I voted! 90% yes on both about now.
And here is the 1st wedding happening... Not the greatest pics with my cheap camera, but now copylefted:
Signing papers before they marry
Getting married
Del putting ring on Phyllis
Phyllis putting on Del's
NickG,
Thanks for the pictures.
Have a great wedding!
Thanks Jeff! It looks like it will have to be later this week. BF remembered a court date with the kid this am (ironically enough) so probably Friday. Its sooooooo tempting to go to Bakersfield. ;)
:-D
Saw this poll announced on the news last night and sent an email to PZ...i am experiencing a geeky thrill to see it get the Pharyngula treatment.
Comment #119 is very well stated. I follow these types of things for the very same reason.
Thanks Jeff! It looks like it will have to be later this week. BF remembered a court date with the kid this am (ironically enough) so probably Friday. Its sooooooo tempting to go to Bakersfield. ;)
Whenever it is, just be happy.
That's what struck me so much when it happened here in MA, the happiness. I've never been to a place like Cambridge City Hall was the night of May 16 turning over into the morning of May 17. (Cambridge opened at 12:01 to be the first city in the Commonwealth to accept Notices of Intent to Marry.) Ten thousand people on the lawn, having a party. Sure, the Westboro Baptist fuckwits were there, but they were ignored; everyone was having too good a time. I've never been in a space like that before, and probably never will be again. But, it was simply amazing. So much joy.
Congratulations California. Have a good time....then kick some right-wing ass.
Just wait until a couple of years have past, and someone produces some data that shows the number of same-sex marriages in year two is down on those in year one. If California is anything like the UK the more reactionary elements in the media will start crowing gay marriage is a failure. Of course the fact that in the first twelve months there will have been a whole load of couple who have waited for years for the chance to marry and take early advantage of the fact they can will totally escape those penning such articles.
Here in Canada gay marriage has been legal for a number of years (length of time varies from province to province). You can also be openly gay in the military and get married to your partner by an army Chaplin.
Wait...
Canada has an army?
(google)
Oh, here they are!
http://www.sdsoldiers.com/DSC0378.JPG
Hee hee. I tease Canada.
Just wait until a couple of years have past, and someone produces some data that shows the number of same-sex marriages in year two is down on those in year one.
The data is already available for Massachusetts. Looks like a classic pent up demand situation.
Holy shit, the Maryland poll is showing:
100% Yes
0% No
And the Colorado poll is showing:
Yes 89.64%
No 9.91%
NS 0.45%
Total votes: 5021
"The data is already available for Massachusetts. Looks like a classic pent up demand situation."
The Government produce some estimates of the number of same-sex civil partnerships that would take place each year when it introduced the law into the UK. It got it wrong in the first year, underestimating the number of such partnerships in the first year but over-estimated the number for the second year. I suspect they taken by surprise by the pent-up demand. In fact nearly three years on and such partnerships are no longer news, unless they involved a celebrity. Occasionally some religious nut protests outside a Register officer where a ceremony is taking place, but they tend to be arrested for obstructing the highway.
Looks like the page is "temporarily unavailable." Overload, or foul play?
I said, my long term partner (13 yrs total)and I had a 'Quaker wedding'. We announced our relationship at a Thanksgiving service at our (Unitarian) Church. Our minister would have performed a formal ceremony, but neither of us wanted it.
The Maryland one is down to 68.18 % yes vs 31.81 % no!
The Colorado one has also declined, but only to 89.43 % yes and 10.09 % no, but given the 5348 total votes (compare earlier totals above), that's not surprising.
"This page is temporarily unavailable. Please check back later."
Must be because I voted "Yes." :P
It's not just the gays that can't get married in a catholic church. No Church wedding for impotent man.
Personally I can't understand wanting the sanction of such a bigoted organisation anyway. Would anyone here want a church wedding - gay or straight? I'm assuming the hard-core atheists like my good self would rather *insert something distasteful here* before stepping into any church. But what about the semi-spiritual among you?
In Colorado it's about 8:1 for yes now. Heeeeeee!
Certainly being gay is 'abnormal'. So is being left-handed. So is being born with a handicap, or red hair, or a birthmark. The fact that something is not the norm, not the same as the majority of the population, means -- that it's abnormal.
But it in and of itself 'not the norm' does NOT mean that it is either good or bad, or that it's justified to discriminate against people who have the trait, or that the people who have the trait are 'probably evil' (as those having red hair and those being lefthanded used to be considered).
The idea that somehow just being part of the norm also means healthier or more functional is not justified in the face of the extreme dysfunctional behavior obvious in many considered 'normal'.
The Baltimore poll at the link in response #1 above now goes to a new poll question, "Should MD recognize gay marriages from other states?". The previous poll results are still available: 85+% said MD should allow gay marriage.
In the current poll Yes is leading, but only by about 60-40
In sociological terms, not-normal, or deviant, means just that - not the norm for whatever group you are a part of! Whether that is your friends (if you hang out with a bunch of smokers, but are a runner who doesn't smoke, you just think they're fun folks) you are deviant, ie not normal. In my family, I'm completely abnormal, deviant in the extreme. Why? I have a college degree, am in grad school, teach at a university, have stayed married for 20 years... all things that 'normal' society would deem normal, right? But not where I come from. Deviant deviant deviant.
In other news, when I got married in San Francisco in 1988, we got married in Golden Gate Park, on Hippie Hill. My hubby wore jeans, a tie-dye, tails and a top hat. I was in a Guatemalan skirt and India cotton top. Flowers in my hair. Married by a guy named Father Free-man of the One Mind Temple of St. John Coltraine. The best man broke about 6 laws and a few local codes by driving me to the base of the tree on his motorcycle. No effing 'churches' for me, thankyouverymuch.
My mother's reaction to all this? "Oh, I'm so happy you're being soooooo traditional!"
Normal for my type, man. Normal for my type.
Heartfelt congratulations to all those who can marry the person they love, openly and proudly! It's about damn time!
Love long, and prosper
I just had a look at some of the comments, and ... strewth!
You guys in the US shouldn't be fighting over "Teach The Controversy!" - you should be fighting over "Teach Teh Spelinng And GraMMA!!!1!"
Truly atrocious.
Can't we introduce Keyboard Licences, just like Driving Licences? "Excuse me, citizen, I'm going to have to cite you for 'Failing To Stop For A Comma' ..."
There is a poll on The Modesto Bee website asking if you approve of same sex marriages. Can you crash that one too? The yes's are only up by 4 votes. Help widen the gap.
Here is the link:
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/331329.html
Wow, that Catholic website (linked in the comment about the impotent would-be groom) is all sorts of informative! For example, Switzerland is about to "rehabilitate" the last woman executed in Europe for being a witch. I bet she's pleased...
My favorite response to the bigots who object to gay marriage is from a (very liberal) friend - yes, allowing homosexual marriages will change the meaning of my own marriage, and that is a very *good* thing. (I.e., now my marriage won't be an instance of an unjust institution).
This is my first post, even though I have been thoroughly entertained by many a comment for months.
I am posting to ask a favor that is not totally off-topic. You see, I have friends and family members who still believe that homosexuality could not possibly be a natural /genetic/biological(what have you) phenomenon. Can anyone lead me to some really good scientific research on the subject? I'm not lazy, I'll do the research myself, just need a point in the right direction. Thanks!
Cocopuffs - Just read this the other day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
I am posting to ask a favor that is not totally off-topic. You see, I have friends and family members who still believe that homosexuality could not possibly be a natural /genetic/biological(what have you) phenomenon. Can anyone lead me to some really good scientific research on the subject? I'm not lazy, I'll do the research myself, just need a point in the right direction. Thanks!
I'm one of those "radicals" but I honestly don't give two shits if it's genetic/biological or whatever. A gay life should be available as a choice for anyone, as should a "straight" one. However, they should be freely chosen, and it's still more difficult to live a gay one, and straight one's are still favored by the state and the rest of society.
Who cares if it's a choice? It's one that should be freely available to anyone.
Yes. . . thank you MAJeff, I realize this myself, but it doesn't take away from my own scientific curiosity. And many of my friends want scientific proof, that's why I was asking. No thanks for your useless tirade preaching to this choir of one.
Oh. . . and thanks sdg, for making me feel a bit welcome as a first-time comment poster and actually trying to help me out.
Cocopuffs,
I don't have any definitive sources for you, but as you're clearly willing to do some browsing on your own, you may as well start here or here.
IMO, the whole "gay gene" thing is a distraction from what we do know about the biological bases of homosexuality. There may be a genetic component, but evidence points to developmental rather than purely genetic influences.
From a social standpoint, MAJeff's point is important and correct, yet it is rarely heard out here in the mainstream. The bases shouldn't matter. It's an issue of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's interesting to me, however, that the path to establishing that ones sexual orientation does indeed fall under that umbrella of fundamental rights leads us to, and then passes beyond, the point where we need to establish that for many people, sexual orientation is part of who they are, and not a "choice" in the conventional sense at all.
Some may then ask, "Ok, but what about women who were sexually abused and subsequently turned to other women as sexual partners? Isn't that a choice with no biological basis whatsoever?" I think the short answer is simply, "No." The longer answer relies primarily on the fact that trauma does influence brain development. Trauma induces physiological changes in the mind. (This should come as no surprise - all experiences do, in varying degrees.) A trauma-induced aversion to sexual contact with men, one that results in a transfer of sexual interest to women, may have no genetic component whatsoever, but is no less organic than the in utero developmental influences that cause an increased likelihood of homosexual orientation in sons of women who have already borne a few sons.
But as Jeff points out, it shouldn't matter. I should no more need a special "biological dispensation" from the state to sleep with a woman or a man at my discretion than I should need one to sanction my choice of vanilla over pistascio, or to use my toothbrush with my left hand rather than my right.
Thanks, Kseniya, your input has been useful, and I appreciate it.
Again, I am with you and MAJeff. I too agree that one should be able to choose who they love and wish to marry,live with, etc. And I agree with you that there are so many complications when it comes to the "origin" of homosexuality in different people. The (annoying) issue is, I find myself in the company (family, mostly) of those who want scientific proof of some sort before they're willing to admit homosexuals deserve equal rights. Of course I don't agree with this nonsense.
These family members I speak of seem hopeless when it comes to changing their minds and attitudes. They are fundamental christians who see the world through a biblical lens and will not see homosexuality as anything other than an abomination, unnatural, disgusting, etc.
Besides the scientific curiosity that I possess, I suppose I am looking for a good counter-argument to their bigotry. They do not know my opinion of the subject as yet. They are the type that can get pretty nasty and vile about such things and I'm just not ready to go there. I'm young (25) and just realizing my lack of christian beliefs. I hope this timidity will lift eventually!
Coco, I don't envy you. I'm a bit younger than you, but I've been flirting with atheism for a while. (Still am - LOL.) My situation is quite different, though. There are very few fundamentalists around here (Massachusetts) and none in my circle of family and friends. For the most part, I'm surrounded by non-believers, liberal Christians and Jews, and the occasional Hindu or Buddhist. When I say "non-believers" I inlude atheists, agnostics, and wavering Deists like my brother. Heh.
Oddly enough, the most devout Christians in my neighborhood are Chinese immigrants. From one People's Republic to another, eh? :-)
They attend church regularly, more than once a week, and stay there for hours. It is a very social thing for them, though, as it's a Chinese Christian church and they're part of community of immigrants there. They may not be as religiously devout as their patterns of attendance might suggest. I really don't know.
They're lovely people, by the way - highly educated, and good-natured almost to a fault. I haven't discussed religion with them, though. I'm afraid to... not because I care so much what they might think of my beliefs (or lack of same) but because I don't want my rosy picture of them to be tarnished by learning they have fundamentalist views, are homophobic, whatever. It's very weak of me, I know...
The biological-bases thing is troubling me now. I can see it leading to a "They can't help themselves" mindset that is, in a way, just as insulting and constricting as the still-pervasive "They're hell-bound sinners" mindset. Ideally, it's a stepping-stone:
Indeed, Kseniya!
It depresses me that I may not be around when it is absolutely commonplace. But I know that if I have the courage to speak up and speak out on the issue of gay rights, I will being doing my small part for the future of homosexuals in this country. Even closer to home, one of my nieces or nephews or some other younger relation may be gay. I would be doing it so they won't have to struggle as the generations before them have.
just thought i'd mention that a science blogger has written about the same study that the bbc article discusses.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/06/brains_of_gay_people_r…
Thanks for the link, sdg.