Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality" and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".

I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation. You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.

The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.

I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.

See, this in an incredibly lazy cop out that shows you didn't even read the studies I cited, not even the conclusions. The studies I cited, more specifically, "Sexual Behavior in Borderline Personality" and the "Geneva Gay Men's Health Study" concluded a strong prevalence of comorbidity between mental illness and homosexuality, if you have an issue with their conclusions, take those concerns up with those who conducted the study. But you don't have an issue with the studies because you didn't read them. You just breezed over my post and just said, "correlation doesn't equal causation".

I don't have an issue with their conclusions because they didn't draw any. They cited statistics indicating increased frequency of comorbidity - a correlation. You're drawing the conclusion that homosexuality causes or leads to those other conditions. And it's just an assumption on your part because you've decided it's "abnormal" and should be discouraged.

The point I am making, and what you ignored, is your claim that societal persecution(though you weren't specific about the manner of persecution the time or the place) triggers anti-social behavior, as opposed to their underlying mental illnesses which drive their impulsive, really has no validity because as the studies I cite show, there is a uniformity of the data across multiple countries, and some of those countries far more liberal than others cited(like Netherlands vs USA until recently) on the matter of homosexuality and mental illness.

I'm not ignoring your point. You might be right. But the evidence you offered doesn't prove your case.

First you say they make no conclusions than you say in the very next sentence they concluded a high prevalence of comorbidity. You need to get your story straight. Secondly, you have shown you don't have an understanding of comorbidity in psychological terms, the term implies association between disorders, not that disorders merely co-exist as a result of chance.
Contemporary Directions in Psychopathology Scientific Foundations of the ... - Google Books

The evidence I provided discounts your contention that "persecution" drives the anti social behaviors of homosexuals, as the data is uniform across societies with differing views on homosexuality.

No- what is amusing is that you declare that since homosexuals experience more mental disorders that means homosexuality is therefore a mental disorder- with no proof of causality.

Here let me help you with this:

Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed. Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.

 

[Silhouette]

...Here let me help you with this:

Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed. Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.

Here's some causal relationships that scientists have observed and come to a consensus on:

Mayo Clinic 2007
One of the most obvious examples of an environmentalfactor that increases the chances of an individual becomingan offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a newidentity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexualarousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuseleading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

And with over 300 references to peer-reviewed studies supporting the conclusions..

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You admit that science can't tell us why some people are gay yet your call people who have a theory that you disagree with bigoted. That is ignorant sir, prove homosexuality isn't a menta disorder, then we'll talk.

No, that is not ignorant. Science has not definitively proven where homosexuality has come from, but that does not automatically make every theory potentially valid. For example, just because the jury is still out on homosexuality does that mean if I say gay people come from aliens I should be taken seriously? No. Your mental disorder argument is equally absurd.

The burden is on you to prove your idiotic claim, not on me to debunk. Good luck with that. In the meantime, chew on this.

"The APA has declared LBG as not a mental illness or disorder with no identifiable dissimilar psychopathology, as both heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are normal aspects of human sexuality" and that homosexuality is not a choice.

The APA could just as easily declare the Sun a perfect Vacation Destination. That doesn't make it so... .

Like you the APA is offering their subjective opinion.

The coolest part of all this is that it all boils down to reasoning... and reason dictates that given the absence of a genetics being responsible, that means that it's not genetics. It's not like the homo-lobby hasn't poured money on science to find a genetic indicator to no avail... so we know that if were possible to even fabricate such evidence that it would be so fabricated and you gals would be straight up authorized as legitimate Shims...

Therefore, we know that homosexuality is not even close enough to a genetic issue that it is not even possible to fabricate evidence that it is.

So... that leaves us with what we always knew... that homosexuality is a learned behavior. Wherein some 'caring adult' pursued a very young minor child, so young that the child is unable to communicate verbally, thus sufficiently young to have no memory of the crime.

But there, in the recess of their subconscious is the imprinted instructions that sexual arousal is directed toward whatever gender so lovingly cared for them way back when.

OH! And we should probably go back over the whole "proof" thing AGAIN:

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Now notice where it doesn't say that the 'evidence' or 'argument' doesn't need to convince you of anything... which is really good news for the argument, given that its impossible to convince a relativist of anything that does not serve their subjective needs... .

I'd listen to the opinion and research of some of the brightest scientists in America than your baseless assertions any day. There is numerous evidence that homosexuality is genetic or epigenetic. And there is zero evidence that it is a choice. Again, you just post a bunch of BS and ignore anything that contradicts your preexisting bias.

The better question is did you choose to have selective attention, or can you just not help it?

The bright minds you listen to are the one's that reaffirm your subjective needs. Such is the nature of the relativist.

What you don't seem to understand here is that I have no dog on this hunt. I could not care less who screws who, be they man or beast or man and beast.

As far as Im concerned if homosexuality had come up as a genetic thing, it would have made you folks a distinct gender; which Ive always coined as 'shim'. And as a gender, guess where that would place you? Square and centered in normal... .

But, as we both know, there is no genetic component in the sexually abnormal thang.

Now... pay close attention here, because we've been 450 pages getting to this little key rub:

That makes the problem "MENTAL". Meaning that despite what the APA homosexuals voted on, sexual abnormality is now what it has always been and THAT IS: A MENTAL DISORDER... One which is not at ALL distinct from Relativism... and Relativism enjoys perhaps one degree of separation from DELUSION.

Which you idiots are determined to NORMALIZE!

Now... as we look around our 'reality' we see debauchery and hedonism run amok... we see insanity... a mouthy minority screamin' to the top of their lungs: "DON'T JUDGE" "RULES DISCRIMINATE!" "DO FOR ME OR ELSE!" and "We have a right to screw whoever we want... even it means we have to murder our children!".

And isn't it the craziest of coincidence that those same individuals are consistently the one's who find no problem with men marrying men and woman marrying woman and both of those groups forcing others to celebrate that through the illicit use police powers, on the basis that ITS THE LAW.

This demonstrates a thorough disregard for what?

It's a complete disregard for REASON. But only the reason which defines the very foundation of this nation.

And THAT is what happens when one tries to NORMALIZE MENTAL ABNORMALITY... ya end up iving inside THE FAR SIDE CALENDAR!

Sexual orientation and gender are not the same thing...gay men are men. Gay women are women. Your refusal to acknowledge sexual orientation is your own problem. When I point to people who actual do this for a living, you just dismiss their work. You equivocate and insult, and have selective attention when it comes to scientific research. If a study supports your current beliefs, you support the study. If a study proves you wrong, well, it must be biased or invalid.

Meanwhile, you have nothing more than a string of irrational, baseless assertions.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.

I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way. So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..

He was QUITE social with his gayness. And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.

He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy. This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex. Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women. It was pure psychological torture. Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth". To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.

Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered. Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California]. But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.

Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him. You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men". And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.

Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion. They did a survey. And here's the results they came up with:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. Your story is in no way verifiable as true, and anyone could make up a story like that and post it online. But guess what? Even if it were true your story is purely anecdotal and serves as evidence for nothing.

Your denial of evidence neither stands as a viable contest of such or relevant to such.

In truth, there is no evidence that homosexuality is anything BUT an imprint of early molestation, by a loving and caring adult.

The fact is that homosexuality behavior, which is the only relevant issue here, is a CHOICE... one which homosexuals on this thread have already freely admitted. SOooo... well, you know.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...Here let me help you with this:

Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed. Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.

Here's some causal relationships that scientists have observed and come to a consensus on:

Mayo Clinic 2007
One of the most obvious examples of an environmentalfactor that increases the chances of an individual becomingan offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a newidentity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexualarousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuseleading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

And with over 300 references to peer-reviewed studies supporting the conclusions..

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

Yes, it turns out that the sexually abnormal think abnormally... thus where they are known to express one deviant expression, they will be quite likely to a express another... thus the extremely high rate of those known to accept sexually abnormal behavior as a homosexual, having accepted sexually abnormal behavior of pursuing children for sexual gratification.

The odds increase exponentially where such individuals accept sexual abnormality through pursing gratification through pornography.

 

[Syriusly]

...Here let me help you with this:

Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed. Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.

Here's some causal relationships that scientists have observed and come to a consensus on:

Mayo Clinic 2007
One of the most obvious examples of an environmentalfactor that increases the chances of an individual becomingan offender is if he or she were sexually abused as a child.This relationship is known as the “victim-to-abuser cycle”or “abused-abusers phenomena.”5,23,24,46......
why the “abusedabusers phenomena” occurs: identification with the aggressor,in which the abused child is trying to gain a newidentity by becoming the abuser; an imprinted sexualarousal pattern established by early abuse; early abuseleading to hypersexual behavior; or a form of social learning took place http://www.drrichardhall.com/Articles/pedophiles.pdf

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

And with over 300 references to peer-reviewed studies supporting the conclusions..

http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf
Conditioning and Sexual Behavior: A Review
James G. Pfaus,
Tod E. Kippin, and Soraya Centeno
Center for Studies in Behavioral Neurobiology, Department of Psychology, Concordia
University, 1455 deMaisonneuve Bldg. W., Montre´al, Que´bec, H3G 1M8 Canada
Received August 9, 2000, accepted March 1, 2001

Yes, it turns out that the sexually abnormal think abnormally... thus where they are known to express one deviant expression, they will be quite likely to a express another... thus the extremely high rate of those known to accept sexually abnormal behavior as a homosexual, having accepted sexually abnormal behavior of pursuing children for sexual gratification.

The odds increase exponentially where such individuals accept sexual abnormality through pursing gratification through pornography.

j
More bat guano crazy posts by Keys.

 

[Syriusly]

...Here let me help you with this:

Causality(in research) a relationship between one phenomenon or event (A) and another (B) in which A precedes and causes B. The direction of influence and the nature of the effect are predictable and reproducible and may be empirically observed. Causality is difficult to prove. Some social scientists contend that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship.

Here's some causal relationships that scientists have observed and come to a consensus on:
e]

Once again Silhouette displaying her lack of understanding of even simple English.

 

[Silhouette]

Once again Silhouette displaying her lack of understanding of even simple English.

Speaking of that. Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.

 

[Silhouette]

The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.

Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.

Funny though how the numbers here on this thread are lining up pretty much the same on this thread. Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Pollsters call that a "trend" if my rusty statistics memory cells serve me:

 

[deltex1]

Jake gets around on these threads...but always with a quare outlook on everything.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's how England is handling the poll results at the top...and Jude 1 of the New Testament.....the mandate to earnestly contend for the faith with regards to keeping homosexual culture from spreading like in Sodom....or else you get the pit of fire for eternity for failing to put a clear and compassionate stop to that spread..

Bishops in the Church of England have issued new guidance warning clergy they should not bless couples in same-sex marriages, after the idea was recommended in an internal report last year....

..."Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways," said the guidance, drawn up at a meeting on Thursday, according to the AFP news agency.
The same-sex marriage law bans the established Churches of England and Wales - which believe marriage can only officially take place between a man and a woman - from conducting ceremonies... Church of England rejects same-sex blessings - Europe - Al Jazeera English

Continued...

In their guidance, the bishops also said that people in a same-sex marriage should not be ordained as bishops, priests and deacons, nor should those in the ministry enter gay marriage.
Gay men and lesbians are welcomed into the Church, but the bishops said: "The House is not willing for those who are in a same-sex marriage to be ordained to any of the three orders of ministry.

OK, that checks out with Jude 1: extend compassion and make a difference..but check that at the point the homosexual insists you embrace or even promote his behaviors.. but then there's this:

But a report last year on the Church's policy on sexuality, commissioned by the House of Bishops, said that in some circumstances a priest "should be free to mark the formation of a permanent same-sex relationship in a public service", without any obligation to do so.

Hmmm....does this sound like "earnestly contending" to keep that spread in check? Or diet-PC-contending? Jude 1 was quite specific and the clergy is erring on the side of secularism instead of God IMHO.

Fear of public rebuke cannot trump duty to God. It is this PC-pandering that has always gotten the various churches into trouble of faith.


..

 

[ShackledNation]

I'm talking about the culture built up over the years where homosexuality was a serious social stigma. Where people were killed for 'coming out'. But even today, the experience of young gay people can be traumatizing. I don't see how you can ignore the difficulties of facing a society that decides for you that you are 'anti-social'. Are gays more susceptible to anti-social behavior because mainstream culture has traditionally marginalized them? Or are they marginalized because of innate anti-social behavior? That's a chicken-and-egg question that requires more than statistical correlation.

I knew a "young gay person" once who committed suicide the long way. So let me tell you a little bit about his trauma..

He was QUITE social with his gayness. And in that way he also murdered hundreds, possibly even thousands by the time he finished killing himself.

He was born normal and then molested by a man as a boy. This imprinted him to seek out compulsively [and very promiscuously, typical of child victims of molestation] males for sex. Meanwhile he kept falling in love with women. It was pure psychological torture. Predictably he contracted HIV from raw anonymous sex that is very typical of his type of "gay youth". To get even with those he perceived that created his angst, he continued to go out and have endless anonymous sex with as many partners as his strength would maintain until his body began wasting away with AIDS.

Back then he still could've gotten reparative therapy he so longed for his condition, and to heal the wounds of child abuse he suffered. Today however, if he was alive and at that young age again, he would be prohibited by law from doing so in the state where he lived [California]. But in that state no effort is spared to coax "closeted gays" or "bi-curious" youth from the hetero ranks.

Instead, he killed hundreds, maybe thousands before the gun ultimately turned on him. You all don't want to talk about how common this scenario [at least the compulsive imprinting part of it] is among "young gay men". And you sure don't want to discuss how at the root of any suicidal thoughts they might have, may be lingering suppressed toxic memories of events where they were assaulted/learned to "love" what was done to them as innocent boys.

Yet the CDC didn't fear this discussion. They did a survey. And here's the results they came up with:

ATLANTA [2005 Clinical Psychiatry News] -- Substance abuse is pervasive among gay men and is so intricately intertwined with epidemics of depression, partner abuse, and childhood sexual abuse that adequately addressing one issue requires attention to the others as well, said Ronald Stall, Ph.D., chief of prevention research for the division of HIV/AIDS prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta...

No scientifically sound study has linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse. Your story is in no way verifiable as true, and anyone could make up a story like that and post it online. But guess what? Even if it were true your story is purely anecdotal and serves as evidence for nothing.

Your denial of evidence neither stands as a viable contest of such or relevant to such.

In truth, there is no evidence that homosexuality is anything BUT an imprint of early molestation, by a loving and caring adult.

The fact is that homosexuality behavior, which is the only relevant issue here, is a CHOICE... one which homosexuals on this thread have already freely admitted. SOooo... well, you know.

You have given no evidence for me to deny. Perhaps you have mistaken your baseless assertions for evidence? In truth, there is no evidence that homosexuality has anything to do with molestation, as the source I gave you demonstrates. Meanwhile, you just have your ignorant opinion, nothing more. No surprise there.

 

[Syriusly]

Once again Silhouette displaying her lack of understanding of even simple English.

Speaking of that. Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?

My english skills enable me to say that churches should not be forced to accomodate any weddings- for whatever reasons.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's how England is handling the poll results at the top..

..

You seem to think that England is reading your 'poll'......

 

[Syriusly]

The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.

Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
:

No- your poll is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.

It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.

 

[Silhouette]

The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.

Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
:

No- your poll is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.

It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.

Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL. I am NOT the OP of this thread!

It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in... and to how the questions were phrased. It wasn't a mediocre "no". It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude. That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP). That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry. The poll is your "Here's your sign"... 82% is IMPRESSIVE...

 

[Skylar]

Speaking of that. Do your english skills allow you to render meaning out of the poll results above to the way the questions were worded?

By 'above the way the questions were worded', you mean whatever you choose to imagine?

Again, the polls showing support for gay marriage are overwhelming. There are literally dozens of them. You ignore them all in favor of your imagination. But do you understand why your imagination doesn't actually effect the outside world?

 

[Syriusly]

The poll results are meaningless in nuance and context in relationship to American culture.

Then all polls are meaningless in the nuance and context in relationship to American culture.
:

No- your poll is meaningless other than to find out how the people responding here on the boards think about forcing churches to marry homosexuals.

It is statistically irrelevant, even within the population of the posters here on USMB.

Again, and for the HUNDREDTH time, it is NOT MY POLL. I am NOT the OP of this thread!

It is however, one of the most, if not THE most popular polls/topics in USMB history and lookie how people weighed in... and to how the questions were phrased. It wasn't a mediocre "no". It was a "oh HELL NO!" with fortitude. That might be a clue as to why dems got their butt whipped in the middle bloc voting against them last week (not for the GOP). That group was voting against something palpable clinging to the democratic label like a repugnant dingleberry. The poll is your "Here's your sign"... 82% is IMPRESSIVE...

It is your poll in that I was referring to the imaginary poll you keep referring to- not the actual poll from this thread.

 

[Silhouette]

It's hardly "imaginary". Look at the poll!