People Who Oppose Gay Marriage Are Less Likely To Value Expert Opinion

>A newly released survey shows that Americans who care about expert opinion and scientific evidence hold different policy positions than those who don’t."

>The survey, conducted in January by the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago and released Tuesday, asked 1,007 Americans online and by phone about how they seek out and process information. About four in five respondents said that it is easier now than it was five years ago to find useful information, but four in five also said that they are sometimes or often overwhelmed by how much information comes to them.

>The effect persisted after controlling for demographic characteristics and for political party affiliation. So, for instance, 39 percent of Republicans who think information related to experts is important agree that “homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another,” compared with just 9 percent of Republicans who don’t.

>NORC conducted the poll in January to try to avoid a time when respondents would be overly influenced by the presidential campaign in full swing, Bradburn said, even while planning to release it around NORC’s 75th anniversary this month. Researchers sought to choose issues that were sufficiently controversial and likely to remain relevant throughout the campaign. “Most people don’t have an opinion on most issues except those right at the top of public discussion,” Bradburn said.

>Bradburn said that with so many alternative sources of information available to respondents, he was particularly struck by the high level of confidence they still place in newspapers: 90 percent of Americans who use them, in print or digital form, said they “can completely or mostly trust” newspapers as a source. The decline of local papers might have taken a toll, though: Only about half of Americans say they are more informed about local news and civic life and government activities in their communities than they were five years ago.

Other urls found in this thread:

fivethirtyeight.com/features/people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-are-less-likely-to-value-expert-opinion/
youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA
breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/05/advocates-gay-open-marriages-redefine-marriage-norms/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

(((Experts)))

>fivethirtyeight.com/features/people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-are-less-likely-to-value-expert-opinion/

Why are conservatives so scientifically illiterate?

FPBP

Fuck fags

>fuckin fags *sips beer* *fucks cousin*

In Germany, we used to be criticized harshly for following experts too vigorously. And suddenly were supposed to follow them blindly again? I really don't know what to think anymore...

>i oppose gay marriage
>i appreciate peer reviewed research
can i only pick one?

>experts

As Michael Gove once said, "people in this country have had enough of experts"

youtube.com/watch?v=GGgiGtJk7MA

>Nate Helium website

Heh

(((experts)))
The same (((experts))) that praised this gay couple... until it came out that they were raping little boys and filming it while using the pro gay sentiment as a shield

The phrasing of the survey question by "experts" is already presumptuous and inherently mutually exclusive to the people who oppose gay marriage. It's not phrased neutrally

And then they wonder why these people distrust experts

People who support gay marriage don't have experts constantly advocating against their beliefs.

As a lawfag you realize after your first year of law school how worthless expert opinion is

Experts on what? Buttfucking?

The proper response to that image is banning the first two as well, not opening up the third

>As a lawfag you realize after your first year of law school how worthless expert opinion is
Meanwhile, your entire career is based on exploiting expert opinion to a group of ignoramuses to support your fallacious, emotionally loaded arguments.

>fivethirtyeight
thanks (((nate bronze)))

Because these so called "experts" are out of touch of the real world and refuses to get out of their safe spaces.

Someone post that news clipping wherein a news outlet praised a gay couple that adopted kids fpr their own then after a month or so they hit the news agin but this time because of molestation allegations.

Remember that accepting homosexuality is another step on the ladder of degeneracy.

>People who oppose gay marriage are less likely to value authority opinion
You value something by it's merit, not by the person who says it. The whole experts meme needs to die already.

>Expert opinion says OP should kill himself with a 1m dildo
We are waiting you to deliver.

Actually that depends on the field

And yea, that's why we think it's worthless

Every trial attorney will tell you they can find an expert to say anything

Also, stay mad faggot

fuck off sage

It's seems the more and more human beings understand about our biology....

The more and more we seek to subvert it's purpose by cutting off each other's dicks, and/or smearing shit all over our genital.

So yes. The (((Experts))) can go fuck themselves.

Came here just to post this

FPBP

you know sometimes I think about gay marriage and I realize what a simple issue it is compared to all the other shit going on now

its hard to believe there was ever a simpler time when it was considered a big issue at all

I don't personally care if gay people want to spend the rest of their lives together and if they want to make some kind of federal record of it that's ok too, they should be free to do so. I respect their freedoms but I think they should respect the freedoms of others as well. It is the church's right to operate in the manner they see fit, and if they object to gay marriage on religious grounds I think that's fine, gays can have civil unions. Personally I don't get the whole deal with the priest anyways, I'll go to the courthouse and tie the knot with my gf one day and have a big party in my back yard.

>manlet and landwhale
>manlet and ayylien with freakish spider-fingers
>gay manlets
When will they learn?

Civil unions don't grant the same legal rights as marriage

>two people who can't reproduce should get tax breaks
no

> degenerate straight people make a mockery of marriage
> hey let's make an even bigger mockery of marriage by allowing homosexuals to marry

You know an awful lot of "experts" said Trump wasn't going to win.

>can't jointly file
>can be barred from important medical decisions regarding your spouse if spouse is unable to consent
>can't pick up kids from school without filling out more bureaucratic paperwork
>can't own property together

For all intents and purposes in some states, gay men are treated as "Single" or "Unmarried" when it comes to legal status

Who cares FFS. We have far more pressing issues than gay marriage, which is now legal and not that big of a deal.

I'm an expert on being able to hear out an argument and know if it sounds like bullshit or not. Also, I'm an expert on expecting an argument to be made at all when a change, especially a socially sweeping one like legalizing gay marriage or adoption, is being proposed.

I still haven't seen the pro-gay-marriage side even pretend to care about good research being done on this subject. Their whole argument is, "THEY WERE BORN THIS WAY FUCK YOU THEY'RE ALL REALLY NICE WHO CARES."

When someone can explain to me how this will have only a positive effect on society then I'll be for it. As I sit here I can't imagine anyone being able to convince me that letting gays adopt children is a good idea.

Doesn't stop infertile hetero couples, or +45 year olds from marrying.

>I went to the grocery store. I wanted a nice, juicy, fresh apple. I had in mind that perfect apple, and what I found was that most of the apples on sale at the store were old and bruised. So, since I didn't see any perfect apples at the top of the apple bin, I decided to call a banana an apple.

Two men "marrying" each other is a scam. You can still live under the same roof together. They only want the same benefits as an actual man and woman married couple.

>538
>expert opinion

>having this shit of a food analogy

2nd can be changed without allowing butt marriage

3rd should stay how it is, you people need to stay away from children

>expert opinion
Like that means anything in the real world

>expert on arguments
>posts a non-argument
wew lad

The point is under that line of reasoning, poly marriages should be allowed to.

This argument has NEVER been about freedom. It's been about taking the best and most optimal breeding/bonding method down a peg out of spite.

Get a grip, faggot.

To further my point:

I barely even read half of that green text from whatever garbage article that is. Now that I read to the bottom they're literally saying that it's a bad thing that most people don't trust shitty legacy newspapers.

If not giving a fuck about what some shitty newspaper filled with corrupt hacks has to say about something, especially after what we've seen in the past year, makes me a retard to these people then whatever. Sounds like they're just looking after their own. Hang them.

Who gives a shit about degenerate polygamous arragements?
Marriage is one the most conservative traditions ever conceived and that fact that two consenting men want to pledge loyalty to another should be commended, not ridiculed and seen as vile because muh religious book

HA. show me one gay couple that's been together for 20 years in a monogamous relationship. that must be 0.005% of gays worldwide

also notice how you never see old gay couples? really makes you think

>asking for an argument
>non argument

Are you actually that stupid?

fpbp

They really love pushing this angle, don't they?

"College-educated", "experts".

But only when it aligns with their narrative and ideology. They'll never mention that most uneducated blacks and Hispanics vote for Democrats, or that Trump actually did better with college educated whites during the election.

Regarding the picture, people's views *are* evolving, just not the way progressives think. You see, a meme can't survive if it can't reproduce, and the progressive meme can't reproduce (at least not genetically). Liberal birthrates are the lowest in the country, and probably on the planet, well below replacement rate, meanwhile conservative birthrates are well over replacement. This means that the progressivism meme cannot reproduce as a genetic reproduction strategy, but can only travel as a virus through discussion.

What is a word for a darwinian actor that does not reproduce using it's own means, but hijacks other actors methods of reproduction? A virus.

They should.

The tax benefits designed to encourage breeding should be changed to only apply when couples actually breed.

I don't give a fuck about the issue either way, but I've always understood marriage as a religious ceremony. Why isn't it enough if they made civil unions effectively the same legally? Wouldn't that make everyone happy?

>notice how you never see old gay couples
literally lurk moar

Does Sup Forums not even realize they are proving the article's point but responding to OP with "muh jews"?

by* responding to OP

Wait... So you're telling me, that people who hold a view that the experts disagree with, andl et me make sure I get this right, value expert opinions less?

HOW FUCKING SHOCKING.

Well I would say the benefit of gay marriage is two fold on society. 1) they can't reproduce so they help control the population and don't create welfare babies like a lot of straight Americans do and 2) if they adopt then they are reducing the orphan rate.

Why would anyone oppose this? Other than religious beliefs, which are totally valid. But from a pragmatic standpoint, I don't see any problem with it.

here

Aren't the reproduction of ideas separate from biological reproduction? Like right now didn't you jizz your idea into all the eyeballs reading your post and potentially inseminate many with your way of thinking?

I know what you're saying, but I think it needs more. I do see how libshits love to find captive groups of 20 year olds in universities to lie to.

All 3 of them can get married, but they don't respect marriage and are dumb.

Attitudes, beliefs and policies are disseminated from the top down in a hierarchy based on academic credentials. If liberal institution has power to establish and maintain a narrative, any dissenting viewpoints are deemed antagonistic. If anything is to be a virus, it is the populist viewpoint challenging the legitimized discourse supported by experts in the field.

This is why the world collectively facepalms when the American body politic literally gives credence and airtime to """"skeptics"""" against climate change.

What if I told you it's wrong to be a faggot?

What if they got something that had the same status as marriage, but no tax breaks, and a different name?
Like Civil Union or something?

The fuck are you on about?
Are british faggots utter slags or some shit?

>people don't want to ban divorce
Oh, look, a straw man or a blatant lie.

>gays being committed to anything but promiscuous sex and HIV
ISHYDTT

...

>implying religion is a valid criticism of anything

There's a reason the bible belt leads the nation in virtually every undesirable metric there is.

I mean shit, they talk about the sancticity of marriage yet have the highest divorce/teen pregnancy rates in the country.

They think for themselves instead of following le (((scientific community))) hive mind

Why do you think they've hijacked all the schools and shit?

They are well aware.

But polygamy isn't being prevented because of moral reasons, it's prevented because it would wreak havoc on the middle class. Think about it.

Right now you have a man and a woman, they get married, maybe have kids maybe not. But right there you've got two sources of income for one household. Add another adult or two to the mix and you've got 3 or 4 sources of income under one roof, filing taxes jointly. It would be too much of a benefit to the common people and the government just can't have that.

"""expert""" opinions

/thread

>There's a reason the bible belt leads the nation in virtually every undesirable metric there is.
niggers

horsey is the biggest moron of all time

>"""expert opinion"""
Experts said Trump will lose.

Is she dying?

West virginia and Kentucky are 90+% white (WV is the whitest state in the country) yet are among the WORST of the aforementioned states.

Try again kiddo!

FPBP

Experts are just Jews who use their connection to give their worthless opinion on TV.

>Its 10 o'clock and here's what we want you to think.

THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE

fpbp yet again

Always disregart (((expert))) opinion on social and cultural affairs. Psychology and Sociology are confirmed pseudosciences and even economics to a degree can be easily twisted into propaganda.

>they were raping little boys and filming it
Doesn't average Sup Forums user dream about it ?

>We've been in a committed relationship for 20 years
HAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm going to need to see some real in-depth on how well children who have been adopted by gay couples have fared into adulthood. I want in depth pychological analysis and it has to be clear that whoever undertakes that task isn't a biased party, which seems to be more rare than I used to think it was. I know psychologists in my private life who are susceptible to considerable bias on numerous issues, and I know good ones who are just as baffled that people they consider smart and educated can so easily put up blinders; especially when their whole job is to be objective.

I want to see statistics on the gays who have adopted children. I want the whole thing studied. Do you have fucking real studies man that answer good questions about the matter?

Are the potential downfalls of gay adoption worth these alleged gains like reducing orphan rare?

Also, just because something alleviates a problem doesn't mean it is the ideal solution.

When a big change like this is proposed, it is the responsibility of the proposers to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that theirs is a good idea.

>SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY *sips chardonnay* *sucks a 16 year old boy's cock*

What the slide on the right doesn't show is that they attend gangbang orgies every night and are both dying of AIDS

breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/05/advocates-gay-open-marriages-redefine-marriage-norms/

Sorry buddy, fags just aren't normal like you and me.

They have an abnormal psychology. It comes with the territory, being pedophiles and all.

Does anyone really give a shit about banning gay marriage other than the religious right?

I mean forcing fags to fuck women or radicalize to the left without any notable gains to society is just pointless.

Shen in backwards, she's probably very very uncomfortable and in pain but not dying

Are you afraid that by gays getting married, you will suddenly drop to you knees and start sucking dick? Is that the real reason why you've never been laid, because you secretly crave a man cock nestled between your boy buns?

>experts

>Elitist?!? Elitist?!? Can't you hear my posh accent? Look at my brown skin. My opinion counts more than yours you Bigot!

How so? They are adults, there is no slope towards pedophilia or zoophilia from "adults should get to bang other adults freely".
The problem is that gays swing left as the left legitimizes their desires, and in turn the lef actually wants to use it as a stepping stone for hardcore subversion.

Is Horsey the biggest cuck in history?

This. Fucking liberals always think the remedy to every double standard is to lower the standards when it should be to raise them.

You can't expect government to check every couple if they're fertile and honestly you can rarely tell for sure. Shit argument.
I agree with old people marrying, though. Pointless.

The original gay rights manifesto at the grassroots level called for abolishment of age of consent laws.

Don't spew made up narratives to conform to your world view.

No, it's a false issue.

>high level of confidence they still place in newspapers: 90 percent of Americans who use them, in print or digital form, said they “can completely or mostly trust”

Trash it. saged.

I'm not even religious and I wouldn't mind banning gay marriage. It's not so much that I have a moral dilemma with the concept, or that I weigh the logistics of the relationship (so far as illustrated in OPs image) but more so that I simply view homosexuality or any non-traditional sexual alignment to be a form of mental illness and abnormal.

Allowing mentally ill/abnormal people to publically decree their love for another mentally ill/abnormal person sets a dangerous precedent and can have serious effects on impressionable youth.

Should gay people be allowed to exist? Well we allow mentally retarded people to exist, so of course gays should be allowed to live too, but I honestly believe society would be a better place if we segregated them from the rest of society, perhaps shipped them off to some gay tropical paradise or something where they could spend every day throwing fabulous beach parties and drinking pina coladas or something.

>an effeminate weeb who jerks to cartoons on an imageboard made for degenerates talking about banning divorce

hahahahahahaa

>Let's clear up the language.
Studies show that people that think for themselves are likely to hold different opinions than people who think whatever they are told to think.
>Makes me think!

Gays are an evolutionary trend. Any mutation leading to faggotry should be purged. Just look at Sweden.

You're no fun.