8 votes

61% Of Young Republicans 18-29 Favor Gay Marriage

Young people continue to be the strongest proponents of same-sex marriage. And as public support for same-sex marriage continues to grow, the gap between young and old is nowhere more striking than within the Republican coalition.

Today, 61% of Republicans and Republican leaners under 30 favor same-sex marriage while just 35% oppose it. By contrast, just 27% of Republicans ages 50 and older favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry.

Continue... http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-...

(I hope this trend continues, because it's always right there in the way of most Republican candidates.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

stupid for calling themselves

stupid for calling themselves republicans to begin with.

61% are trendy statist?

I'll wager this same group is unphased by abortion, the Pill, artificial "fertility" schemes, and so forth, the very technological systems that will erase "gays."

Seriously, what is the point of this post? That being "pro-state licensed marriage" is a political winner?

Longtime Internet Poster

Gay Marriage isnt about marriage

gay marriage isnt about forcing everyone to accept their lifestyle. If two homosexuals want to get together and call it marriage who cares. The thing is that since gay marriage has came about the gays have been suing everybody who disagrees with them. From photographers, bakers, and somehow hobby lobby is anti gay because they dont want to pay for abortions. Heck they have even arranged for people like the ceo of mozilla to be fired for disagreeing with their life style.

So what!

people who stick their nose in other people's business need to read up on liberty.

GOP is full of mindless followers of others who practice hypocrisy.

NOSHEEPLE

I think these statitics are misleading

I do not support or favor gay marriage, that being said, I would not stop anyone either, its not my place and I really don't care.

However, I would be put in this list of "favors" simply because I am not for making it illegal.

Hot.

Hot.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Cyril's picture

I have good news for everybody, two-fold

I have good news for everybody, two-fold:

1) ALL marriages (and weddings) are meant to be gay, in fact; yup, by very design :)

(I can't complain, here, no disappointment: I had a very nice gay wedding with my wife, who is a woman.)

However,

2) NONE of them wedding and marriages (and because of this gay quality precisely) can be compatible with ANY government involvement - or, even less ! with the definition by laws;

And do you know why, dear fellow Daily Paulers ?

Well, my first language may be helpful to clarify the situation, removing the unfortunate - and rather eerie - confusion:

"gay" seemingly comes from the French "gai" (or "gaie", f.) which means... "cheerful" !

See how easy it was ?

Reassure me... We all DO care about language and words here, don't we ?

Government and laws are NEVER gay ! ARE they ?!

Anyway, you're welcome ! :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

It's not about favoring. It's about not opposing.

It's not about favoring. It's about not opposing.

That's my argument with the remaining bigots in the republican party. I simply tell them that I don't favor gay marriage, but I also don't oppose it. I don't favor drug use, but I don't oppose it.

If they were to re-word the poll question to, "Do you believe that the government should have the power to regulate marriage?" the results would be overwhelmingly opposed.

It comes down to how much power you want to give to a government to regulate consensual relationships between two adults. The power they have to regulate this will mutate into other powers that regulate your own victimless, consensual choices.

Wake Up!

This is about govt hand outs not marriage.
As soon as the army ditched don't ask don't tell, they started providing free housing to gay partners.
Companies will be required to provide free partner benefits etc.
I don't care if people fuck, but that does not make them my dependent.
This is exactly like the ERA amendment which was a Trojan horse for special benefits and more govt regulation.
Do what you want but do not ask me to recognize it and support it. Your sex life should not pick my pocket.

I'm sorry is your wife only

I'm sorry is your wife only part of your "sex life?" Almost every major company now provides benefits to domestic partners and gay folks. So your position is that allowing same sex marriage will cause a bunch of straight guys to get married so they can get benefits? If you haven't noticed taxes for married couples are significantly higher than couples that live together without a licensed marriage.
How long have you been married to your sex partner, I'm sorry Wife?

What?

What was your point?

My point was that the pro gay marriage effort is another play for benefits. It is not about right to do what you want it is about rights to other people's money.

You don't need the govt permission to express your love, sign a contract, set power of attorney, etc.

If your company wants to offer benefits without govt coercion that is fine, but don't kid yourself that companies are free to make choices like that.

As to taxes - all taxation is theft. Why would I support taxes?

That should be a private part of your contract with your company

When you sign up to work there, government should never mandate any benefits. It should all be freedom of choice for both the company employee on an individual basis.

Jeremy

"If you haven't noticed taxes

"If you haven't noticed taxes for married couples are significantly higher than couples that live together without a licensed marriage."

It actually depends on the relatively amount of money made by each person in the marriage. Generally, when one person has a higher salary and one has a very low salary (or no salary), the total amount of taxes paid is less than would be paid if filed separately.

And yours shouldn't pick gay

And yours shouldn't pick gay people's pockets. Until that happens, the picking should be equal.

It is interesting, however, how many people think that gays getting the same marriage tax incentives as everyone else is "picking someone else's pockets", but something like Ron Paul's health savings account idea is "keeping your own money".

Just make sure you get yours

"The picking should be equal".

Great another I'm OK with taxation as long as I get my share.

Why don't we all mooch off the govt and no one will every have to work?

Sorry, I am for rights for everyone and entitlements for no one. I won't vote for "equivalent" entitlements.

I can't believe this posting

I can't believe this posting has so many comments, for it reaffirms my initial fear that many conservatives will never give up trying to be the moral authority and attempt to tell other folks how to live. Anyone can hire a hooker and get married at a courthouse tomorrow and it would be legal. It doesn't mean your church sanctioned it nor does it mean you have to approve of the hooker and the guy. How you live your life and decide who you love shouldn't be any of my concern. Last I checked two guys having a legal marriage so they can divide up property or gain access to the hospital to see their loved one doesn't infringe on your life, liberty, or property. There's many family situations that I think are strange and couples that make no sense to me, but I also understand that it isn't my place to bar other people from living the way I see fit.
If Rand and the republicans focus on economic liberty and reducing unemployment while staying away from social issues they can have a future. As long as you beat the bible at gay folks and turn a religious belief into a political stance you will scare away thinking people. Everyone has had a gay friend, relative, co worker, or child. Having large majorities of morons voting to bar a group of people from marrying isn't liberty it's tyranny. Since when is it a good idea to allow voters to pass laws taking rights away from a group of people? How can you be on the side of liberty if you support such an idea?

what rights have been taken

what rights have been taken away? what about that cake maker in Colorado who was forced by the court to make a wedding cake for 2 perverts? what about his rights.

How about we restructure the tax code

So that it really doesn't have anything to do with marriage anymore? Like simplify it radically, because let's be honest that's really what this is about, at least how you are putting it. It would really allow for Rand and Ron Paul types (and most social conservatives) to then mostly focus on fiscal issues.. (I would also make a case that it is libertarian to be pro-life as unborn babies are human beings, and hence should be considered Americans with rights that cannot be infringed).

Jeremy

Woo

The faster the Republican party co-opts gay marriage, the faster the whole issue goes away.

How the NGOs connect with the Homo Obsession--an eye opener

NGOs are non-government organizations set up by the CFR Ruling Class Elites. We all know who these people are. They are the global elites, the top bananas, above all the think tanks, the NGOs, the Media, and the politicians. How is this connected to the homosexual issue? Let's just say I've had a massive awakening recently, and I am sure the elites have been to blame for all the turmoil we have about this issue in the US. In order to get to this conclusion, you must understand thoroughly the origin of the NGOs and their operation and objectives.

I always wondered how our American culture and religious beliefs had such a massive change in such a short period of time in our history! But then I realized through understanding the NGOs that that was the culprit and the conduit the CFR used to enter any targeted country (including our own) to achieve the US and West's economic domination and totalitarian control through these NGO-Regime created puppets. In other words, the NGOs stir up trouble in a designated country and funnel a lot of money and weapons into the hands of radicals, so that they can create enough instability in that government, thereby seizing control of it and putting their own puppets in office. The audiotapes of Victoria Nuland & Geoffrey Pyatt were quite revealing and were broadcast all over the Internet about their US – led and plotted Coup against Ukraine.

Regarding Ukraine, the US hypocrisy is stunning. I don't even know how members of these NGOs can stand it. and I do have the list of names in the Russian appointed NGO, if anybody wants their names. I mean, does money really buy them their ability to critically think? I mean, can't any of these NGO people see that this is only about greed and power? Can't they see that that's wrong morally? It's just amazing to me that these NGO individuals can be so blinded from their own sense of right versus wrong.

It just proves how Pres. Putin and his ideologies of Russian unity based on sound moral values and principles are really way ahead of the game of the United States now. I mean, this is after the ilk of George Soros and the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller foundation and the Rothchild families, etc. etc. have totally evicerated and gutted the one thing that held America together--that is our Christian beliefs and our cultural traditions.

George Washington said "It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible". It really was the glue that held us together up until the 1960s.

Like a marriage, the more you have in common, the better you get along. So, in with the multi-culturalism and millions of 3rd World immigrants Who had nothing in common with us religiously speaking. I see now that that was the goal and ambition of these NGOs that the ruling elite class wanted to impose on America, and it might also explain why both Republicans and Democrats are totally supportive of this, at the end of the day, and why nothing ever got done on this issue. The whole thing is not about tolerance. It's about common sense. It's about respect. Although Americans have nothing against other cultures, the third world cultures did nothing to bind us together.

Regarding the subject, a part of our fundamental values were how we were taught to believe about men with men, and women with women. We were always taught it was wrong. We never thought about it though because it was never a subject of discussion in the 1960s. But, as time went forward I noticed subtle changes in that topic of discussion, and I always wondered why it ever became a subject of discussion in the first place. And if you think about it today, it's only 3% of the entire population, so why is it a subject of discussion as much as it is?

First, let me say, I have no ill will towards anyone who is a homosexual. They can do what they want, as long as they don't bother me. Having said that, let's look at the implications made by the discussion of the NGOs, a very virulent organization bent on destabilizing a culture such as ours, so that they can more easily divide and conquer. In conclusion, and food for thought, the more a country has in common the more strength they have together, especially the strength they will need to fight a fascist regime. Just think, a 3% issue is put on the pages almost every day of Yahoo and Google and on TV. Just who owns the media? Just who owns Hollywood? We know the answer to that, don't we?

Excellent

Finally, someone who gets it. This is not about gays. It's about divide and conquer... To destroy us as a people. They have succeeded judging by the fools in this thread who are so completely disconnected from reality, they could not care less about our social cohesion and moral standing as a society. They think it doesn't affect them, but they're wrong. All of this gay nonsense is directly connected to the globalist plan of one world government which is what we are fighting against. Yet the anarchist fools fail to recognize this.

If it is about divide and conquer

If it is about divide and conquer then why are you so opposed to same sex marriage? If you don't single out a particular group because of your beliefs you are playing into their hands. Karl Rove couldn't have gotten George W elected without the polarized electorate in 2004, who were up in arms about San francisco's gay weddings. Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Bhuddists, & Atheists, should all be allowed to have their beliefs but there's no feasible legal way you could take the courts out of the marriage business after all these years. To have a valid stable rule of law, you need contracts that aren't subject to varying religious dogmas. As long as Rush Limbaugh can make a mockery of marriage while he's on current wife #4 then it seems reasonable that lesbians and gay guys should at be allotted the same rights.

The time to protest gay marriage and argue it on religious grounds was hundreds of years ago when courthouses began performing marriages. The precedent of marriage being contracts issued by the government has been going on forever and you cannot undo, nor in my thinking should you. I could easily foresee a scenario where a woman in the catholic church seeks approval of their divorce and isn't granted one(this actually happens all the time). Luckily she can still get divorced at the courthouse but will be either kicked from the church or at least become social pariah. I know a few churches that have not given their approval of the divorce and we're asked to stop attending service.

I don't think marriage needs

I don't think marriage needs a third party (church or state). If you want to be with someone forever and have a family with them, no institution or authority figure needs to wave a magic wand and make it "real." If it's not already real without the consent of a third party then you are living in somebody else's world instead of your own. This other world is owned by corporations and managed by governments (with the threat of violence). This "legal" world that lawyers, politicians and corporations control is a slave system sold to you as your only cultural option, but it is not. Can a person live without banks and corporate food and municipal water? Many people are trying to find out.

Here's why

Woman marries dog...

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/09/woman-marries-dog-i-couldnt-th...

This is the problem with not having a moral code of conduct. Such is the case with abortion. They have academic discussions of post-birth abortions for children up to 3 years old. Where does it end? Are we better off today?

It's not a coincidence that the homosexual agenda being shoved down our throats comes at a time of complete corruption and imminent collapse of the western world into destitution and slavery.

The further we get away from the Good Book, the further down the sewer of corruption and depravity we fall as a people.

It's right there in front of your eyes, yet you refuse to see it.

I have no problem with that

So what if she married her dog? How is that any of your business?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Society

It's about the overall state and health of society Ed. Did you not read the rest of my comment?

Take a look around brother. It's indicative of a sick, perverted, depraved society. And if you can't see that by now, you're blind.

The marriage isn't valid...

...until it's consummated which is illegal because an animal cannot give consent. There are instances of moral code but it has to be without religious base.

You can have your beliefs but leave the YOUR "Good Book" out of government legislation.

Yeah, so lets ban all

Yeah, so lets ban all marriages because this one strange person thinks she can marry an animal that cannot profess to love her, let alone profess it's desire to marry her. Genius!

Marriage

Nowhere in my comment did I mention banning marriage. Not too bright I see.

Re-read my comment. And read my reply above.

Denying millions of men and

Denying millions of men and women the right to marry, because some woman marries a dog...