(July 15, 2015 at 10:42 pm)Kitan Wrote: So now Anima has been reduced to illogical arguments against gay marriage even though gay marriage has been deemed legal.

Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Actually I recognize the lack of legal support of the ruling as well as many of the consequence which will follow that will unltimately result in it being overturned.

Furthermore, I await a logic argument in their favor that is not predicated upon a fallacy.

(May 29, 2015 at 11:37 am)Anima Wrote: Okay;

First, lets deal with Scalia's statement that so long as the State legislates it may be tailored.  If marriage is ruled to be a fundamental right than it becomes akin to the 2nd amendment and may not be abridged or withheld.

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage.  Now if we assume the age restriction placed on the 2nd amendment (a child under the age of four does not have the right to bear arms as they lack sufficient development of person to understand the right in anyway) there may be a restriction placed on children under the age of 5 (though not likely as the restriction for the second is predicated on the inherent dangerous nature of a firearm).

This would thereby make adult to child weddings legal (likely with parental consent).

Are you stupid?

Informed. Consent. Informed consent is what makes child marriage not ok.

Take your 2nd Amendment example, for instance. That line is NOT predicated on the danger of the firearm. Read it again. That line is predicated on the child's ability to understand that danger. It is possible to teach a 5-year-old to more or less understand the dangers of a firearm. It is not possible to make an informed decision about choosing a marriage partner until late adolescence to early adulthood at the earliest, if we're going by western standards (and most of the evidence I've seen). Because a child below this age cannot be expected to have the ability to understand marriage relationships properly, it makes perfect sense for the "legal age" in this instance to be much higher than, say, the right to have a gun.

I do find it interesting that the Catholic was the one who jumped straight to the "Slippery Slope to Pedophilia" argument. You gonna talk about bestiality next? That always gets people nice and emotional.

Quote:Actually I recognize the lack of legal support of the ruling as well as many of the consequence which will follow that will unltimately result in it being overturned.

Furthermore, I await a logic argument in their favor that is not predicated upon a fallacy.

So are you crossing your fingers and waiting for Gaud to overturn it? Could you hold your breath while your'e doing that, please?

(July 15, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Ace Wrote: Ok, based on the laws that you had provided which position should this be looked at, a religious one or one of plan discrimination? Keeping in mind that in 1990's Massachusetts had legalized same sex and civil unions, promise or commitment ceremonies were occurring in other states.  So since the late 1990's till, lets say 2013 any news in regard cake disputes seem to have never been an issue until now.

This has made some think that they are personally being targeted by homosexual organizations to deliberately have them change their policies or put them completely out of business because of their "un-wanting to participate in any way to their marriages.". They organizations are saying not true.

However, why is it only recently that this had become an issue? Given the various types of ceremonies throughout and marriages in Massachusetts were being conducted  prior to the State court ruling and the Supreme Court ruling, with what seems to be not an issue.

It is a little out of the ordinary that the shops that are refusing their services  just happen to be some fundamental type of Christian group. I have look and have not found any issue with other religions or any other non-religious bakeries. Only the Christian one's

It should also be noted that the backing shops in question have no history of any prior discrimination to any minorities. ( Black, Women, Jews, disabled)

Is there any legal action that the shops can take if they can prove that they are definitely being targeted because of their religious objection's?

I have read about the various cake shops you are discussing and find their stories quite interesting. In general the trend seems to be the cake shops are not denying them the baking of a cake. Only the baking of a wedding cake, which they believe would constitute their participation in an act they deem to be immoral. A few of the shops even offered to bake the cake, but would not place any same sex imagery on the cake, while being willing to provide the customer with the means to readily place the desired imagery at a later date.

I imagine the majority of the push against them is in an effort to establish moral equivalency. It is apparent to even the pre-Socratic philosophers that people want their actions to be determined as good and proper even when they are not so. And as I like to say jokingly, "There are two ways to be the best. Either be the best, or be the best of what is around by making them worse." As the argument is predicated upon fallacies alone they seem to be taking the latter route.

In regards to your legal recourse of the cake bakers. First, the cake bakers need to re-write their contracts to explicitly state the benefits and duties therein are to be assignable and delegable at will (implicitly all contracts are assignable and delegable). By doing this they may take orders from any customers and the delegate the duty and benefits of making the cake to someone else.

Second, they need to begin to file counter suit on the theory of tortious interference with a contract and perspective economic profit. If it may be shown the defendant intentionally interferes with a known contract or with an evidence perspective of economic profit than the plaintiff (cake bakers) may recover from them the lost profits the contract or perspective profit entailed.

Third, they need to file counter suit based on constitution protections (4th amendment) a person's right to privacy and association. So if these cake bakers would like to further avoid legal battles they need only consider themselves a private association which admits members only upon referral and committee approval (where the committee consists of the owners themselves). They are being attacked under the argument they are a business that is open to all clientele (many of which are small mom and pop shops which most obviously are not).

Fourth, they need to file counter suit based on the 1st constitutional protections. Freedom of speech also constitutes freedom from speech. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a business (like the government) has a right to dominion over the message it portrays to the public (unless compelled by safety or national obligation). A wedding cake may further be considered either a public or private forum by which approval or dissent of a wedding is expressed. Thus the cake baker's are well within their rights to with hold speech in this forum or to express speech in this forum as is keeping with their corporate message.

Most of these suits were litigated by african-americans throughout the years. Following re-construction and the civil rights era. At present the Court seems to have a good balance between corporate and personal rights. However, if the Supreme Court continues to break with precedence in order to try to compel people to accept what they do not want I am not sure how things will go.

(July 16, 2015 at 9:40 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 11:37 am)Anima Wrote: Okay;

First, lets deal with Scalia's statement that so long as the State legislates it may be tailored.  If marriage is ruled to be a fundamental right than it becomes akin to the 2nd amendment and may not be abridged or withheld.

As such, it would be illegal to place an age restriction upon the age of marriage.  Now if we assume the age restriction placed on the 2nd amendment (a child under the age of four does not have the right to bear arms as they lack sufficient development of person to understand the right in anyway) there may be a restriction placed on children under the age of 5 (though not likely as the restriction for the second is predicated on the inherent dangerous nature of a firearm).

This would thereby make adult to child weddings legal (likely with parental consent).


Are you stupid?  

Finally, thank you Redbeard The Pink,  some who who also see's the treating of children like adults as stupid.  I thought I was the only one.

I agree it is completely so stupid to:
-  Try a child from the age of 3 and up in any crime. (We do this by the way [i]regardless of the child's ability to comprehend[/i])
- To try a child as an adult when we all know dame well they are not.
- To allow kids form 6 and up to shot guns either at the shooting range or in their own back yard.
-  Corporal punishment in schools is allowed in 19 states.
- Send kids to detention camps.
- Kids can buy e-cigarettes.
- Get drunk with their parents, (2013, Massachusetts state Supreme Court ruling).
- That their is no one effective child set safety law because that states can not agree on what is considered the best way to protect children in cars. So each have their own laws.
- Arrested for having under age sex.
- Arrested for containing and distribution of child pornography (by sexting).
- To leave you child unattended in a car, (only in the states of Louisiana, Maryland, and Nebraska outright ban the practice)
- That it is legal for parents have some of the most aggressive dog breeds around  baby's and toddler's.
- That it is not illegal to not have any fences around all pools in peoples personal yards.
- A pregnant women can smoke and drink alcohol in every state.
- It is not illegal for a parent to be an alcoholic.

And a so much more. . . . .

Who would have every thought that such bull shit would every be allowed to occur!!! It really makes you wander what were people thinking, "Oh that never going to happen" and when it did actually happen it seems like nobody care's, unless it happens to their own child. Sad!

[/quote]

(July 16, 2015 at 9:40 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(May 29, 2015 at 11:37 am)Anima Wrote: I do find it interesting that the Catholic was the one who jumped straight to the "Slippery Slope to Pedophilia" argument. You gonna talk about bestiality next? That always gets people nice and emotional.

    Interesting that you would say that because unlike pedophilia,  you are not going to believe this, because bestiality is legal in 19 U.S. states and DC.  
HAHAHA want a country, I love it.

Also I don't think Anima is a  priest, which last I check it was those twisted priest who were molesting people. Not Catholics in general.
________________________________________________________________
It is possible to teach a 5-year-old to more or less understand the dangers of a firearm.

Although it is kind of funny that a kid can have and play with a gun but not get marry? Hmm? You would think both would be band, but no.
Also how is it that a kid can amazingly " understand"  the "danger of guns" but no marriage? I mean if you think about it:  . . . Boom- you die  . . .  Married- play house.
Hmm? Well, just think.

I have a question on the treatment of people. If we treat each other the "same right now", and "always have" then why are there laws that define protected classes? Or better yet why is the gay community wanting to receive protected class states? Given that the majority is in support of gay marriage, (60% to 70% was the last I read) who do you need protection from?
People who are in the 30% to 40%? which the number its self is not showing any powered dynamic on there part. All is in favor of the gay community.

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Which is a completely irrelevant point, because I don't then conclude that therefore strangers should have less rights than my immediate family. I don't look down on strangers because they have no personal attachment to me, nor do I go looking for reasons why they're lesser than I am. You just got through agreeing that gays are somehow worse than straight people, the difference between that and how you'd view a stranger is stark.

The very point is to say we already value people for numerous reasons. Commonly people value people in accordance to their sentimental attachment to them. I think many of us would agree if I had to sacrifice my mother or person X I would sacrifice X. Simply because in our view mother > X. Now I am saying this is common, but I am not advocating this is how we deal with the issue of persons with disabilities or deficiencies. Hence, the very reason I say I will not determined my views of law, biology, society, and teleology on my sentiment. In previous post I already showed how gay inflicts a metaphysical and physical harm.

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And are any of these people in the receiving end of the "you are worse than me," conclusion that you've just agreed to regarding homosexuals? Are you arguing that they should be offered less rights than you or I get?

Indeed they are. We have sought to cure most of them (both my cousin and fiancee continue to receive psychiatric help for their PTSD and my other cousins have been through surgeries, training, and rehabilitation for their various physical disabilities). Those who could not be treated have been integrated into society to the degree their disability or deficiency allows. For example my cousin who is blind is employed in the technological field using speech software. But he is horribly discriminated against and denied the dignity of state recognition of his motor skills by being denied a drivers license. The rest of have been ostracized in accordance with that disability or deficiency. My cousin with cerebral palsy is further discriminated against because though she wants to work she is not permitted to work due to her disability.

As said before. Society seeks to cure, if not cure than integrate in accordance with the society and the limitations imposed by the disability or deficiency, and finally if they cannot be integrated they are to be ostracized. This is what we do with people right now throughout the world. It is the very reason why if we cannot rehabilitate criminals (cure them) and reintegrate them back into society we must keep them imprisoned.

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Which is, again, a completely irrelevant point since equal rights merely confers parity. If you see no possible way to accept that a given condition is not preferable (in this instance I'm entertaining your claim that being gay is worse than otherwise) but that the person is still a human being deserving of equal rights, then you have a serious problem there. Do you have a ranking system, for what threshold of disability corresponds with which level of arbitrarily stripped rights?

A change in terminology I see. I take it you wish to contend that parity is not the same as equality or equivalency, which is why you introduced the term stating equal rights only confers parity. In either case I am sure the persons in question will be happy to hear you state they will be given "parity" only.

Now in regards to this parity I recognize (and have already iterated) that people have certain rights as humans. I also recognize that for the sake of society those rights may be overridden, restricted, or denied. I further recognize the false equivalency of stating all humans are deserving of parity of rights regardless of the quality of humans.

It is with little difficulty that I think we may recognize an entire class of humans who should not be allowed to exercise a given right. For example the members of NAMBLA may not operate a business by which they produce or distribute videos in line with their members tastes. But why not? What happened to their parity of rights to engage in business (which has been determined as existing under the 14th due process clause liberty section as well)? They were born that way, they are not hurting anyone (the boys are well compensated and parental consent was granted, even if their parents are another member of NAMBLA). Why can't they exercise parity in the rights to engage in business. Are there any other such examples we may come up with?

There is no need to ask me for a specific breakdown of disability to rights withheld (particularly if this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam where you would say since I cannot give one than there should not be one). In general we need only look to the inability brought about by the disability or deficiency to determine which rights should be withheld. If the disability results in a mental condition not befitting "sound mind" to contraction than the party in question should be denied the right to enter into contracts. If the disability or deficiency results in a disposition to molest children than they should be denied the right to work, engage, or adopt children (as much as the law may do so).

In short we do not give all humans parity of rights. I know that we all know this to be the case (though some of us seem to overlook all of the persons with disabilities and deficiencies who we do not give parity of rights to and would not give parity of rights to in order to special plead this one group.)

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Because to be clear, the argument you're making right now makes your conclusion completely arbitrary; there is no connection between "being gay is disorderly," and "therefore you can't get married," any more than there's a connection between "cerebral palsy is a bad condition," and "therefore you don't have a right to a fair trial." If this is really what you're going with you cannot reach the conclusion that equal rights are excluded somehow, because that conclusion is a total non-sequitur.

Gay marriage doesn't "propagate" homosexuality; gay people existed long before gay marriage did, not having gay marriage did nothing at all to quell the spread and social acceptance of them, they're born of straight parents a lot of the time... you just have no argument here, and it took you two paragraphs to get there.

Regrettably your argument is more of a non-sequitur. To argue that gay does not make gay, but are human is not not one supporting why they should be afforded parity. It is also no different than arguing murders do not make murders so they should be given parity as well since they are humans. Murders existed before laws against or for them, murders are born of non-murders a lot of the time. And there are many times where society has come to accept murder committed by murderers (even calling them heroes). So we should not deny them parity of rights to liberty, dignity, and security? No.

Naturally we recognize the deprivation of parity of rights in regards to a murder is contingent on the qualitative aspects of the murder and the murderer. That which murders the enemy in great number to the benefit of a given society at time of war is a hero; that which murders their allies in great number to the detriment of a given society in times of peace is a monster. To the former we heap praise and grant rights in excess of parity with the common as reward; to the latter we heap condemnation and denial of parity of rights as punishment.

The argument I am making is to say parity of rights are not to be accorded to humans simply because they are human without any consideration for their qualities as human. Now in regards to the particular subject of marriage it may be said our society (or a given society) which deems certain conduct or proclivities as disorderly or bad may either in consideration of the inabilities imposed by that proclivity exceed or deny parity of rights or may take steps to diminish or eliminate this conduct from its society by means of denial of parity of rights. (Please note this is what humanity has and is currently doing now!! And is not some fanciful ideologue view of a world of false equivalency or for the sake of argument or an exhibition of my own dastardly nature. Different things need to be treated differently; that is the reality! As pointed out by Ace.)


“Many have dreamed up republics and principalities that have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation.”(Niccolo Machiavelli)

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Anima Wrote: Now I imagine the crux of your question is what I would do for those who are present.  As I said earlier I am not saying round them up and execute them on the spot.  However, I recognize they are an unnecessary burden upon society which any given society must deal with.  Some societies may choose to deal with it by means of execution (it is a reasonable solution);

Wow.

My wife is physically disabled, you horrible person.

I am sorry to hear that she is physically disabled. And wish you and her the best in dealing with her disability.

With that said I do not recant my previous statement as I do recognize the rational validity behind the humane execution of persons with disabilities rather than to allocate a greater quantity of scarce resources, than required by one without such disability would require to function in a given society. This is not to say I am an advocate of such a solution, but I am aware of the rational and reasonableness of it over leaving one so disabled to naturalistic consequence by which their physical disability shall negatively impact their chance of survival and lead to prolonged suffering and death.

My fiancee is not physically disabled but suffers from PTSD to such a degree that it is rather debilitating. I would be lying if I said that her mental deficiency did not consume an excessive amount of time and resources that would be better spent on one without such deficiency. While I am emotionally attached to her, and thereby willing to invest such time and effort, I can see the logic behind it being better if she did not have that problem or in society dealing with that problem in the most efficient objective manner possible such as termination.

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Still not getting why you think that lesser physical or mental capabilities should lead to unequal rights.

Due to the inherent inabilities manifested by those lesser capabilities. As pointed out by Ace I may provide accommodation due to those inabilities that I do not provide to those without those inabilities. I may likewise deny privileges due to those inabilities that I provide to those without those inabilities. The two are fundamentally not equal and it is great disservice to endeavor to treat them equally. Doing such would deny aid to those who need it and grant privileges to those who should not have them (I imagine you readily recognize the first, but do not agree with the latter. To which the saying was, "why is it that people are so foolish to believe that because we erred too far in one direction we can never err too far in the other?")

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So do you just have no empathy at all, or what? What is actually wrong with you?

Indeed I have empathy to such a degree that it extends beyond my personal sentiment, whims, wants, and relationships. When it comes to winning the battle or the war I intend to win the war. It is for this reason that I do not let me sentiment define law, biology, society, or teleology. While such would be satisfying to me, it may not necessarily be said what is preferable to me is preferable to all or more to the point advisable to all.

To this end I recognize that your inquisition to empathy is argumentum ad misericodiam (appeal to pity) and that an appeal to pity/mercy is an inherent injustice (as mercy is to give more than is due, justice is to give what is due, and spite is to give less than is due). Now I do not think you want me basing my decisions of social conduct solely upon my empathy. However, if you argument is that I should and that I am of the utmost deplorable of monsters for not doing so I would quote the following:

“He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason” (Marcus Tullius Cicero)

“Democracy arose from men’s thinking that if they are equal in any respect, they are equal absolutely.” (Aristotle)

"It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope”(Niccolo Machiavelli)

(July 15, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: No, see, I made the mistake of thinking that I was talking to a real human being and not, y'know, a cartoon evil robot. I figured it would be fairly trivial to point out the hypocrisy of your position, but it turns out your position is consistent, and as a consequence infinitely more vile than I could reasonably have imagined at the time. Subsequently, I see no point in even offering an argument to someone so grotesquely warped as you; the chances of you having anywhere near the same values as me are so low that I might as well take up the conversation with an emotionless insect. Maybe that species of wasp who lays its eggs in a tarantula. Seems less vicious than you.

Ha ha. To quote Neitzche:

"The power of moral prejudices has penetrated deeply into the most intellectual world, the world apparently most indifferent and unprejudiced, and has obviously operated in an injurious, obstructive, blinding, and distorting manner... If, however, a person should regard even the emotions of hatred, envy, covetousness, and imperiousness as life-conditioning emotions, as factors which must be present, fundamentally and essentially, in the general economy of life (which must, therefore, be further developed if life is to be further developed), he will suffer from such a view of things as from sea-sickness... now let us set our teeth firmly! let us open our eyes and keep our hand fast on the helm! We sail away right OVER morality, we crush out, we destroy perhaps the remains of our own morality by daring to make our voyage thither--but what do WE matter. Never yet did a PROFOUNDER world of insight reveal itself to daring travelers and adventurers, and the psychologist who thus "makes a sacrifice"--it is not the sacrifizio dell' intelletto, on the contrary!"

(July 16, 2015 at 9:40 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Are you stupid?

Informed. Consent. Informed consent is what makes child marriage not ok.

Take your 2nd Amendment example, for instance. That line is NOT predicated on the danger of the firearm. Read it again. That line is predicated on the child's ability to understand that danger. It is possible to teach a 5-year-old to more or less understand the dangers of a firearm. It is not possible to make an informed decision about choosing a marriage partner until late adolescence to early adulthood at the earliest, if we're going by western standards (and most of the evidence I've seen). Because a child below this age cannot be expected to have the ability to understand marriage relationships properly, it makes perfect sense for the "legal age" in this instance to be much higher than, say, the right to have a gun.

I certainly hoped you continued reading. First, a parent may on behalf of a child under the age of five exercise a fundamental right in their interest. Such as but not limited to added security and dignity of the child through marriage. Second, a child is deemed to have informed consent in regards to a fundamental right at the age of 5 years or greater (unless suffering from developmental disabilities or evidence the child is not of sufficient maturity). This is even being argued by people in Oregon who want to give the child final say on whether they should be allowed to have assisted suicide. What can a child possibly know about life and death as to have informed consent

Furthermore a child may enter into a contract with an adult particularly in regards to necessaries (means of survival). The petitioners having won their case have redefined marriage as relationship and security centric and no longer procreation centric. As such the child may enter into a marriage contract to ensure the necessaries where the marriage is state recognition of the adult/child relationship conferring greater dignity and security to the parties involved (it is not related to sex anymore).

Argument to parental consent is possible, but runs afoul of the situation which is common with child weddings in which the parents do consent. Before the state could deny the marriage under the argument it was an implicit agreement to sexual relations and is barred by a rational basis prohibition. As a fundamental right efforts by the State to prohibit this marriage will now have to satisfy strict scrutiny where the State must give a compelling interest in denying the recognition of an adult child relationship that confers added security to the adult and child. (Remember it is not an implicit to sexual relations any more. I understand it is hard to let that idea out of our minds but this is what the ruling just did).

(July 16, 2015 at 9:40 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: I do find it interesting that the Catholic was the one who jumped straight to the "Slippery Slope to Pedophilia" argument. You gonna talk about bestiality next? That always gets people nice and emotional.

No worries on the beastiality front. That is until PETA is successful in their efforts of having the courts recognize that animals have civil rights. Less we forget consent may be explicit or implicit by conduct. If it does not disagree than it agrees.

The law is slippery slope. Anyone familiar with precedential jurisprudence may attest to that. Is it really so hard to imagine? In the history of the nation can we not think of an example where a "mature" 13 year old girl wanted to marry her 18 year old boyfriend? Or where a 16 year old Courtney Stodden wanted to marry a 42 year old Doug Hutchinson? Or where a man named Warren Jeffs married any number of under aged girls to older men with the consent of their parents?

Do you think if or when these people are arrested for doing any of these things they will not use the ruling which states the marriage is not an implicit agreement to sex and is for the added dignity or security of the parties involved to avoid jail? So many are big on empathy on this site. So empathize. If you were them what would you do? I imagine you will save your ass any possible and make use of the law that could get you off rather than sit in prison.

(July 16, 2015 at 9:40 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: So are you crossing your fingers and waiting for Gaud to overturn it? Could you hold your breath while your'e doing that, please?

Why would I wait for God to do that? What I am waiting for is the mountain of law suits which will be filed in order to gain moral equivalency by any number of groups including, but not limited to same sex persons. The polygamists are already at the appellat level so I do not imagine it will take long. When you say the law conveys dignity and security and people have a fundamental right to dignity and security you really do open yourself up to law suit by any group not granted legal recognition for any of their activities.

(July 16, 2015 at 10:58 am)Ace Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 9:40 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:     Interesting that you would say that because unlike pedophilia,  you are not going to believe this, because bestiality is legal in 19 U.S. states and DC.  
HAHAHA want a country, I love it.

Also I don't think Anima is a  priest, which last I check it was those twisted priest who were molesting people. Not Catholics in general.
________________________________________________________________
It is possible to teach a 5-year-old to more or less understand the dangers of a firearm.

Although it is kind of funny that a kid can have and play with a gun but not get marry? Hmm? You would think both would be band, but no.
Also how is it that a kid can amazingly " understand"  the "danger of guns" but no marriage? I mean if you think about it:  . . . Boom- you die  . . .  Married- play house.
Hmm? Well, just think.

HA HA. An excellent argument!!

(July 16, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Ace Wrote: I have a question on the treatment of people. If we treat each other the "same right now", and "always have" then why are there laws that define  protected classes? Or better yet why is the gay community wanting to receive protected class states? Given that the majority is in support of gay marriage, (60% to 70% was the last I read) who do you need protection from?
People who are in the 30% to 40%? which the number its self is not showing any powered dynamic on there part. All is in favor of the gay community.

Because public polls are not the same as election results. Who would have thought people would ever say one thing in public and effectuate another thing in private.