2 ms·
We're going to have to agree to disagree - I think 834 people is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions. Btw, if the campaign for "marriage equality"
by notjackma 12y ago
We're going to have to agree to disagree - I think 834 people is too small a sample size to draw any conclusions.
Btw, if the campaign for "marriage equality" were truly about equality, it would also include polygamous heterosexual families in Utah looking for recognition in law, as well as religions where marriage partners can be under 18. Thus the campaign for "marriage equality" has a narrow definition of equality and should be renamed the campaign for "same-sex marriage".
- aaronbrethorst 12y agoAs Daniel Patrick Moynihan once put it, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Spend a few minutes reading about polling methodologies and playing around with a sample size calculator. California's number of registered voters was around 18.25 million in 2012. Put in 19 million if you're feeling generous to your own opinions. Also, all 50 states allow minors to wed with parental consent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_United_States_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage_in_United_State... Thus the campaign for "marriage equality" has a narrow definition of equality and should be renamed the campaign for "same-sex marriage". Sure, ok, whatever.
- notjackma 12y agoSo you can get married without having to ask for anyone's permission. Yet individuals who are 16 or 17 years old, need parental consent, before getting married. How is this "equal"?
- aaronbrethorst 12y agoThey're minors. There is no equality. No one is debating that minors should be extended the full set of rights accorded to legal adults. The only time in the last 50 years this came up for debate was when 18-20 year olds were being sent off to die in a conflict that they couldn't vote against.