Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws

[Stardust]

Studies indicate that polls significantly overstate public support for 'gay marriage."

http://prospect.org/article/when-can-you-trust-polling-about-ballot-measures

http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_marriage_polling.pdf

Yes, of course. All the polling in the universe does not address or reflect the actual performance of homosexuality at the ballot box.

I don't understand how you guys think about this.  Are you insinuating that the underperformance of gay rights at the ballot box somehow negates the obvious trends we've seen in social science polling (and at the ballot box, really) on this issue over the past decade?

I believe he's suggesting there exists a sort-of Bradley Effect on the issue.

[Stardust]

It would seem to me if they were confident of winning (the proponents of 'gay marriage') in Massachusetts they would welcome such an example of public support.  

Why? Direct democracy ought to be opposed by anyone who feels strongly on just about any political issue. Nobody should propose holding referenda on any subject they consider important, because the democratic process debases all subjects. I would hope that a conservative like yourself would understand that and share my hostility towards mass politics.

[Stardust]

Now, will you in turn admit that if there had been a referendum on the Massachusetts 'gay marriage' law, the voters may have rejected 'gay marriage'?

I readily admit that. I'm not sure, however, why I ought to accept the judgment of the voters as a qualitatively valid one.

[Stardust]

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

[Stardust]

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.

Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.

[Stardust]

As such, it seems to me that persons incapable of procreating should be given civil unions and marriages reserved for those capable of procreating with their legal partner.  

This isn't a very conservative concept. In fact, it's a radical innovation, more radical by far than homosexual marriage. The true conservatives of the ancien regime would have wanted you lynched.

LOL.

Why do you think I'm joking? You have just radically altered the definition of an institution.

You assertion is laughable, to I laugh at it.

You clearly need to study some authentically conservative thinkers.